The Historical Structure of Scientific Discovery Written by Thomas Kuhn

...

In his writing Kuhn used oxygen as an example, he made it very hard for the historian to tell him who discovered oxygen and at what time using practical questions. According to Kuhn to say that a discovery had occurred required scientist to not only know something has been discovered but what in particular is being discovered. Discovering objects is a long complex process that begins when a scientist recognizes an abnormal result, decides to investigate the abnormal object, and last ends when the scientist adjust the paradigm to account for the object. Kuhn used this to distinguish discovers from non-discoveries.

Feyerabend was heavily influenced by culture movements of the 60’s so he would definitely agree with Kuhn and they share similar ideas. Feyerabend had an issue of falsifiability that resembles Kuhn in the Historical Structure of Scientific Discovery. It states that no theory is ever consistent with all important and relevant facts. Feyerabend took different examples from the history of science he claims that scientist frequently depart completely from the scientific method when they use fake ideas to explain observations that are later justified by ideas. He called them ad-hoc hypotheses because they temporarily make a new theory compatible with facts until the theory has enough facts to support itself. Feyerabend disagreed with the way the method was composed just like Kuhn.

Both authors compared because they agreed that there was a serious issue with the paradigm shifts. Feyerabend actually emphasizes Kuhn’s ideas that reigning paradigm critically influences the interpretation of observed phenomena. He agrees how important it is that a discovery can be given to the wrong person or interpreted wrong. However, he adds that in a paradigm model, the reigning paradigm would also influence incoming theories. Both philosophers agreed a new theory must derive from an old in almost every instance. They both had methods that battled with another method.

Kuhn had a problem with the way discoveries were made in scientific findings. Feyerabend was influenced by Kuhn and had a problem with the consistency between theories and facts in scientific findings. These authors agreed that the scientific method was corrupt and needed change. They knew that because theories derived from other theories it would be hard to change the methods and discovery in science.

Works Cited

Smith, Roger. "The Structure Of Scientific Revolutions." World Philosophers & Their Works (2000): 1-3. Literary Reference Center. Web. 3 Apr. 2016.