The Reception of Kuhn and Popper.

It seems to me that the philosophers of science Thomas Kuhn and Sir Karl Popper were to some extent in agreement. Both believed there is no way of telling whether science is moving toward or away from ontological fact, let alone know if current theories are ontologically true, but that it can be said that science is becoming ever more increasingly precise in “puzzle-solving”. Although they differ in how they come to this conclusion (For Popper, his attempt to solve the problem of demarcation lead him to the methodological theory of falsification, which says you cannot say anything is true or false, only that it hasn’t been falsified; whereas Kuhn’s attempt to delineate the new image of science that was emerging from the work of historians of science, such as Koyré and Metzger, lead him to the idea of paradigms and paradigm shifts, where it can only be said a theory is acceptable within a given paradigm, not that it is an ontological fact), I cannot understand why scientists dismissed Thomas Kuhn as a relativist, but heralded Sir Karl Popper as the greatest philosopher of science in the 20th century.

Can someone explain to me why, while Sir Karl Popper was being knighted by the queen of England, Thomas Kuhn was being attacked and marginalized?

Ponty,
All that you have written on this subject sounds intriguing. I wish I knew more on this matter or that someone else who would, might come in and discuss it. This would be interesting to read.

I think it’s due to Poppers falsifications theory offering a hope of a progressive science. Once any old science has been falsified we progress and come up with better science. New theories and dogmas.

Kuhn made the relationship between dogmas rather relativistic, saying it’s impossible to know which is the better. There’s no method of deciding. This offers little hop for the continues progress of science. Though they both have much in common, I think the crucial difference is between the hope and despair offered in both theories.

My university may be unique in this regard, but Kuhn is generally quite revered. (I am not a student of epistemic theory, though.)