Suchergebnisse

MOST POLITICAL SCIENTISTS HAVE NOT QUESTIONED THE ACCURACY OR THE APPLICABILITY OF THOMAS KUHN'S IDEA OF SCIENTIFIC PRACTICE. T. KUHN'S ORIGINAL FORMULATION (THE STRUCTURE OF SCIENTIFIC REVOLUTIONS, CHICAGO, ILL: U OF CHICAGO PRESS, 1962) INVOLVED A PREPARADIGM & A PARADIGM STAGE. POLITICAL SCIENTISTS WHO ACCEPTED THIS FAILED TO REALIZE THAT THE PREPARADIGM-PARADIGM FORMULATION DID NOT GIVE A FORMULATION FOR SEPARATING THE 2 STAGES. KUHN CLAIMED THAT "THE ACCEPTANCE OF A NEW PARADIGM IS BASED ON FAITH, NOT EVIDENCE." THE CRITERIA TO BE USED IN JUDGING A THEORY, KUHN CALLED VALUES, NOT RULES. POLITICAL SCIENTISTS HAVE HAD 3 USES OF THE KUHNIAN PARADIGM: (1) THE TERM 'PARADIGM' IS APPLIED TO HISTORICAL DEVELOPMENT & USED TO SPECULATE WHY THERE WAS A PARADIGM CHANGE, (2) THE CRITERIA FOR ASSESSING THEORETICAL FORMULATIONS ARE THE SAME AS THE CRITERIA FOR ASSESSING PARADIGMS, & (3) KUHN'S ORIGINAL CRITERIA ARE ARGUED--THAT THE FORMULATION IS THE PARADIGM WHICH POLITICAL SCIENTISTS HAVE ADOPTED. CRITICISMS FROM PHILOSOPHERS & HISTORIANS OF SCIENCE ON T. KUHN'S FORMULATION ARE DISCUSSED TO SHOW THAT HIS PARADIGM FORMULATION DOES NOT HOLD MUCH VALUE TO THE STUDY OF POLITICS. KUHN'S FORMULATION IS ANALYZED AS BEING "VAGUE & THEORETICAL". MODIFIED HA.