Document Type
Journal article
Source Publication
Studies in History and Philosophy of Science Part A
Publication Date
3-1-2011
Volume
42
Issue
2
First Page
117
Last Page
124
Abstract
Popper repeatedly emphasised the significance of a critical attitude, and a related critical method, for scientists. Kuhn, however, thought that unquestioning adherence to the theories of the day is proper; at least for ‘normal scientists’. In short, the former thought that dominant theories should be attacked, whereas the latter thought that they should be developed and defended (for the vast majority of the time).
Both seem to have missed a trick, however, due to their apparent insistence that each individual scientist should fulfil similar functions (at any given point in time). The trick is to consider science at the group level; and doing so shows how puzzle solving and ‘offensive’ critical activity can simultaneously have a legitimate place in science. This analysis shifts the focus of the debate. The crucial question becomes ‘How should the balance between functions be struck?’
DOI
10.1016/j.shpsa.2010.11.031
Print ISSN
00393681
E-ISSN
18792510
Publisher Statement
Copyright © 2011 Elsevier Ltd
Access to external full text or publisher's version may require subscription.
Additional Information
The earlier versions of the paper are presented at the Future of Humanity Institute, University of Oxford, 2008, and Ockham Society, University of Oxford, February 2009.
Full-text Version
Pre-print
Language
English
Recommended Citation
Rowbottom, D. P. (2011). Kuhn vs. Popper on criticism and dogmatism in science: A resolution at the group level. Studies in History and Philosophy of Science Part A, 42(1), 117-124. doi: 10.1016/j.shpsa.2010.11.031