[ethnic_throw]

I'd be careful reading it: Kuhn is excellent at building narratives, and what is more narrative friendly than revolution? In reality science is far more messy than he acknowledges.

Unfortunately while I think many of Kuhn's observations are interesting, I'm confused what you think scientists might learn from them. After all, the work in question is science, not philosophy of science, and frankly it seems a lot of time like the latter gets in the way of work (see: Popper's radical empiricism). Poetic? Sure. Useful? Difficult to see how.... Mostly his work seems useful for bolstering the credibility of speculative Popular Science articles (or Axios in this case).

[52-6F-62]

Oh well I didn't think I'd applied any subjective notion to my recognition that it sounds like the paradigmatic event that Kohn describes. And having recently gone through the book it was the first thing I noticed.

My admiration for Hinton there lay separate from my remark about Kuhn.

I'm not quite sure where you got that I think scientists must learn from Kuhn's observations. But I will say, that while it's kept me away from my other studies (for the obvious displacement of reading one thing and not the other), I don't see the harm in indulging in such reflection. But my background isn't engineering, mathematics, or physical sciences before my more recent work. It's in humanities and the arts where multidisciplinary studies are encouraged. I suppose I'll probably always carry that with me. If nothing else, perspective is a good thing to have -- and not all thoughts, reflections, or ideas entertained need be engaged.

At any rate, the book was recommended and I try to remain open minded.

[ScottBurson]

> In reality science is far more messy than he acknowledges.

Funny you should say that. I take Kuhn's whole point to be that science is far messier than the empiricists acknowledge. What is the complication that you think Kuhn overlooks?