Phil 8: Introduction to Philosophy of Science

Outline 17: Kuhn’s Relativism

I. Incommensurability Revisited

o Because scientific paradigms are incommensurable, Kuhn believes that there are no
considerations that force (on pain of irrationality) researchers to abandon one
paradigm in favor of another.
o As far as logic and scientific methodology is concerned, researchers are justified in
believing the old paradigm for as long as they’d like, even after it’s fallen out of
fashion.
o On Kuhn’s view, there are no binding criteria of theory choice: there is no set of criteria
that determine which theory scientists are justified in believing.

II. Shared Criteria of Theory Choice

o Kuhn admits that there are some shared criteria of theory choice that apply across
paradigms:
o Accuracy
o Consistency (internal and external)
o Broad Scope
o Simplicity/parsimony
o Fruitfulness (A paradigm’s ability to present many puzzles that are solvable
within the paradigm.)
o But, the question of how to apply these criteria is not shared across paradigms.
o Each one of the criteria is imprecise.
o And together, the criteria conflict.

o So, even if all researchers agree on the five criteria, they may disagree about what
theory to choose because they disagree about how to understand and apply the
criteria.

III. A Different Model of Theory Choice

o Prior to reading Kuhn, we were hoping to find rules the govern theory choice-
rules that tell us which scientific claims we are justified in believing.
o Kuhn argues that criteria of theory choice should be thought of as values, rather
than rules.
o Two people who share all the same values may nevertheless reasonably disagree
about what to do in particular situations.
o Perhaps science is only possible if there are no binding criteria of theory choice.

IV. How relativistic is Kuhn’s view?

o Consider an analogy. Suppose we go to a movie and I say, “That movie starred

Dwayne “The Rock” Johnson, and it was well acted, and I liked it.
o The claim “I liked it” is so highly relative that there’s no arguing about it.
o The claim that the movie started Dwayne Johnson is not relative at all. It can be
established beyond a reasonable doubt by looking up the movie on IMDB.
There’s no room for reasonable debate once we’ve checked IMDB.
o The claim that the movie is well acted, however, is between these two claims.
There is no algorithm that all rational people must agree on that determines
whether a movie is well acted or not. Nevertheless, the claim is constrained by
some objective criteria- there are shared standards for good acting. Reasonable
people can disagree about whether a movie was well acted.
o Kuhn’s view of scientific debate is that it is more similar to a debate over
whether a movie is well acted than it is to a debate over whether the movie
features Dwayne Johnson or whether I liked it.