By Thomas S. Kuhn - The Structure of Scientific Revolutions: 50th Anniversary Edition (Fourth Edition) (2012-05-15) [Hardcover]

I read this book completely by accident; I found Kuhn's name and this book as a reference while looking for something completely different. When I checked out the reference a little further, I discovered that this book is generally considered a classic (anything written a half a century ago that's still cited probably has -some- staying power). So I decided to take a look at it.The book is relatively small, which means you might think it's an easy and quick read. You'd be wrong. Kuhn's book is dense with information and thoughtful presentation, which makes it challenging to sail through quickly. However, I felt that was also one of its strong points; it forced me to work through the book and really think about what I was reading. If you're looking for fluff and pablum; look elsewhere.So, what's the book about? As has been stated elsewhere, Kuhn's premise is that scientific progress isn't what it's typically made out to be. Generally, such as in most of my high school presentations, science is portrayed as a steadily moving river; progressing inevitably from one port of discovery to the next. Kuhn's book set that perspective on it's ear, by stating that science progresses relatively seamlessly until it gets near the edges of understanding, where it then begins fragmenting into a variety of perspectives and viewpoints. Eventually, a fundmental [paradigm] shift occurs which completely changes the world-view of that science (and which often creates an academic war to go with it). Once the dust has settled, revisionist history takes over, and we romanticize the struggle that our understanding went through in that period of growth and change.Kuhn presents all this in a logical fashion, strengthing his argument via both a well-thought-out approach and a variety of supporting anecdotes. In particular, he doesn't rely too heavily on the Copernican revolution, which seems to be the only argument that others can present on scientific revolution. That alone contributes perhaps most heavily to the value of the argument.So what has this got to do with change management? I worked as a management consultant for a few years, all before I read this book. Upon reading it, I was hit with the most blinding flash of the obvious; a lot of what I saw empirically in the business world echoed the issues of scientific paradigm shift that Kuhn so eloquently presented in this text. If your work involves any change to an organization; you -have- to read this book. It communicates, better than any book I've read on the subject, what's happening and why in the midst of change. The title may say "Scientific Revolutions," but the applicability is across the board. Buy it and read it.

Easy to read, interesting ideas, got it to read for fun and ended up basing my philosophy dissertation on it because it is a very useful framework through which to discuss ideas in pretty much any field.

Thomas Kuhn's book has provided comfort for me personally. There is no need to go into the details of his arguments. For example, whether the old generation has to die before paradigm shift can take place is not the issue. The issue is whether scientists resist anything new that cannot be fitted into the existing paradigm. Whether it took ten years or a lifetime for people to accept the theory of the origin of ulcers is irrelevant. I am disagreeing with the review by Peter Hobson (Groton, CT USA), 12/25/2005]. What's important is the initial reaction of the community to new ideas. I have evidence to support the observations and analysis by T. Kuhn.Revolutionary ideas and theories gain faster acceptance if the new paradigm can quickly lead to economical and social benefits. I believe this is why the story of ulcers so quickly received the recognition of Nobel Prize in Medicine. If the idea leads to more effective treatment, who could hold up its consequences? Even the opponent would embrace it immediately because he would not want to suffer from ulcers.The problem is that sometime the benefit of making a paradigm shift is not immediately obvious. The defendant of the old paradigm simply resists changes because the habit to tirelessly improve the old paradigm is hard to change.It is difficult for us to appreciate the point of view expressed in Kuhn's book unless we are familiar with the process of a scientific revolution. I can verify based on my experiences, i.e., on the reactions to our work that Kuhn is "right on the money". Let me quote three remarks by the members of the community, first on my published scientific article, second on a rejected manuscript, and the third on my declined proposal to the National Science Foundation:"To say that the conclusions drawn by the submitted article are controversial is an understatement of Herculean proportion....While scientific advancement often requires the disproving of established thought, the authors of this work attempt to do so without sufficient proof. The material responses described in this article could be ascribed to other physical processes, including those that adhere to the traditional school of thought...The urgency to abandon conventional wisdom without sound basis is disturbing.""The Comment by xxx (two of whom are xxx Medalists) makes a very strong case for dismissing the main results of xxx (the present reviewer). Unfortunately, the Reply makes ZERO valid counterpoints and consequently should not be published. If xxx (the present reviewer) want to admit their mistakes and explain how they fell into the trap of publishing erroneous results, this might be useful so that others do not make similar mistakes in the future.""Overall, the PI needs to calm down considerably. In this proposal and his recent papers, the PI tries valiantly to sell his work as the single most important breakthrough in the history of science! In fact, both the proposed and recent work is reasonable, but the overselling done by the PI irritates people."I hope that people like Mr. Peter Hobson would in the future interview some people involved in scientific revolutions before making comments that could be misleading.It is very sad that the phenomena described by Thomas Kuhn are real. I have learned to be patient and more tolerant after reading the book.I am also very intrigued by his definition of Science as well as his statements regarding textbooks that present science as absolute truth without offering any historical perspective and describing where it comes from and who is chiefly responsible for creating it. I hope to write about these issues at another time.

Very enjoyable