Kuhn's theory of paradigm shifts dates back over 50 years. Are there modern critiques of or alternatives to his theory? It seems to have been controversial from the start, with some people apparently claiming that Kuhn was attacking scientific realism. I think a lot of scientists today are familiar with Kuhn's ideas in a vague way and may have read his book, but also simultaneously hold a lot of philosophical or historical beliefs that they may not realize are incompatible with Kuhn, e.g., a belief in the importance of Popper's falsifiability criterion.

related: Examples of Kuhn loss?

  • 2
    $\begingroup$ Perhaps the most famous attempt to reconcile Kuhn and Popper was Lacatos's methodology of research programmes. He tried to resolve Kuhnian difficulties of falsificationism by distinguishing between "core" and "protective belt" of research programmes psych.stanford.edu/~jlm/pdfs/DienesChapters/… $\endgroup$
    – Conifold
    Jan 20, 2015 at 21:20

1 Answer 1


You can see at least Thomas Kuhn, with extensive bibliography.

The debate following the pubblication of SSR in 1962 was impressive and interesting, and far from having reached a consensus on his main thesis.

In the SEP entry above you can see :

6.4 Recent Developments

Even if Kuhn's work has not remained at the centre of the philosophy of science, a number of philosophers have continued to find it fruitful and have sought to develop it in a number of directions.

According to my knowledge, during the 50 years since the first edition of SSR, there has been no new "approach" to the philosophy of science able to arouse so big a consensus and so much dissent.

Nor Kuhn's views regarding science has acquired the status of a new "received view" (i.e. the status achieved during the '30s by the neo-positivist conception of science).

You can see :

or :


Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service and acknowledge you have read our privacy policy.