{"title":"Conceptualizing paradigms: on reading Kuhn’s history of the quantum","authors":"Jan Potters","doi":"10.1080/00033790.2022.2063945","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"ABSTRACT In this article, I discuss the criticisms raised against Thomas Kuhn’s Black-Body Theory. These criticisms concern two issues: how to understand Planck’s position with regards to the quantization of energy in 1901, and how to understand the book’s relation to The Structure of Scientific Revolutions. Both criticisms, I argue, concern the notion of a paradigm: the first concerns how Boltzmann acted as an exemplar for Planck, and the second whether the book provides a paradigm change. I will then argue that both criticisms presume a conceptualization of paradigms that does not align well with Kuhn’s conceptualization of it in both Structure and later work: they assume, more specifically, that sharing a paradigm presupposes sharing an interpretation of it, and that paradigm changes are essentially identical to gestalt switches. On the basis of this, I will then argue that the criticisms are misguided, that Kuhn’s position regarding Planck’s work is in fact quite close to the indetermination-view developed by some of his critics, and that the book fits Structure quite well. In conclusion, I will then reflect on how the narrative provided in Black-Body Theory connects with Kuhn’s views on the relation between history and philosophy of science.","PeriodicalId":8086,"journal":{"name":"Annals of Science","volume":"79 1","pages":"386 - 405"},"PeriodicalIF":0.9000,"publicationDate":"2022-04-12","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Annals of Science","FirstCategoryId":"98","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1080/00033790.2022.2063945","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"哲学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"HISTORY & PHILOSOPHY OF SCIENCE","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
Abstract
ABSTRACT In this article, I discuss the criticisms raised against Thomas Kuhn’s Black-Body Theory. These criticisms concern two issues: how to understand Planck’s position with regards to the quantization of energy in 1901, and how to understand the book’s relation to The Structure of Scientific Revolutions. Both criticisms, I argue, concern the notion of a paradigm: the first concerns how Boltzmann acted as an exemplar for Planck, and the second whether the book provides a paradigm change. I will then argue that both criticisms presume a conceptualization of paradigms that does not align well with Kuhn’s conceptualization of it in both Structure and later work: they assume, more specifically, that sharing a paradigm presupposes sharing an interpretation of it, and that paradigm changes are essentially identical to gestalt switches. On the basis of this, I will then argue that the criticisms are misguided, that Kuhn’s position regarding Planck’s work is in fact quite close to the indetermination-view developed by some of his critics, and that the book fits Structure quite well. In conclusion, I will then reflect on how the narrative provided in Black-Body Theory connects with Kuhn’s views on the relation between history and philosophy of science.
期刊介绍:
Annals of Science , launched in 1936, publishes work on the history of science, technology and medicine, covering developments from classical antiquity to the late 20th century. The Journal has a global reach, both in terms of the work that it publishes, and also in terms of its readership. The editors particularly welcome submissions from authors in Asia, Africa and South America.
Each issue contains research articles, and a comprehensive book reviews section, including essay reviews on a group of books on a broader level. Articles are published in both English and French, and the Journal welcomes proposals for special issues on relevant topics.
The Editors and Publisher are committed to supporting early career researchers, and award an annual prize to the best submission from current doctoral students, or those awarded a doctorate in the past four years.