O controversă filosofică tipică? Disputa Popper-Kuhn
A typical philosophical controversy? The debate between Popper and Kuhn

Summary/Abstract: This article examines the controversy between Karl R. Popper and Thomas S. Kuhn, two important 20th century philosophers of science. The central point of contention was the concept normal science, a concept advanced and articulated by Kuhn. Starting from a critical appraisal of this concept, a project undertaken by Popper in some of his writings, significant challenges are identified that a philosopher of science might meet with in understanding, presenting and adequately criticizing concepts and ideas supported by a substantially different understanding of modern scientific knowledge. It is only at first sight surprising to note that Popper’s critical examination of the concept normal science was not supported by an adequate understanding of what Kuhn was after. This is because the conversation between the two evinces a “breakdown of communication”. This is characterized as a natural and inevitable consequence of investigating and characterizing scientific knowledge from a general logical-philosophical standpoint, and, respectively, on the basis of examining the specifics of research in areas that Kuhn terms as “mature scientific disciplines”. Conversations and controversies of this kind between philosophers, each with their own original outlook, are far from rare. Such thinkers find it especially difficult to fully understand approaches and standpoints that are anchored in entirely different presuppositions, incompatible with those which support their own projects and developments. One might also use this vantage point in order to examine, and to assess previous examinations of, the misunderstandings that have plagued dialogue between other important philosophers of the past century, such as that between Ludwig Wittgenstein and Bertrand Russell or that between W.V. Quine and Rudolf Carnap.

• Details
• Contents