Thomas Kuhn's Structure of Scientific Revolutions has sold over a
million copies in more than twenty languages and has remained one of the
ten most cited academic works for the past half century. In contrast,
Karl Popper's seminal book The Logic of Scientific Discovery has
lapsed into relative obscurity. Although the two men debated the nature
of science only once, the legacy of this encounter has dominated
intellectual and public discussions on the topic ever since.
Almost universally recognized as the modern watershed in the philosophy
of science, Kuhn's relativistic vision of shifting paradigms--which
asserted that science was just another human activity, like art or
philosophy, only more specialized--triumphed over Popper's more
positivistic belief in science's revolutionary potential to falsify
society's dogmas. But has this victory been beneficial for science?
Steve Fuller argues that not only has Kuhn's dominance had an adverse
impact on the field but both thinkers have been radically misinterpreted
in the process. This debate raises a vital question: Can science remain
an independent, progressive force in society, or is it destined to
continue as the technical wing of the military-industrial complex?
Drawing on original research--including the Kuhn archives at MIT--Fuller
offers a clear account of "Kuhn vs. Popper" and what it will mean for
the future of scientific inquiry.
