The publication of Thomas Kuhn‘s The Structure of the Scientific Revolutions was a symptom of his age as much as a cause of the new era: immediate recognitions of the book as an important product of the era among the literary circle might be the evi...
The publication of Thomas Kuhn‘s The Structure of the Scientific Revolutions was a symptom of his age as much as a cause of the new era: immediate recognitions of the book as an important product of the era among the literary circle might be the evidence of this appraisal of the book. As a part of commemorative addresses on the publication of Kuhn‘s Structure, this article excavates his personal sense of crisis on his own belief in rationality confronted with war experience, and explicates his colleagues‘ sense of crises on their disciplinary traditions confronted with Kuhn‘s Structure. Legacy of Kuhn‘s Structure on his colleagues turns out to be somewhat ironic: many philosophers of science felt Kuhn‘s language in the Structure as penetratingly serious challenge, yet they seem to be relatively unmoved in their traditional disciplinary orientation. Most historians of science found Kuhn rather traditional in mode of research, yet they completely refashioned the field of history of science, and for this change, Kuhn‘s influence is undeniable. His younger colleague historians of science, particularly his former students, unanimously testified Kuhn as an influential teacher. But many of them seem to have difficulty with his somewhat stern apprenticeship for his students and seem to have misgivings on his rigidly narrow investigative research orientation centering around reading the mind of the past scientists. Yet in spite of their difficulties and misgivings, his fellow historians would not deny that they are now under Kuhn‘s shadow in search of truth based on rationality.