Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-ndw9j Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-13T01:50:42.682Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The Popper/Kuhn debate: truth and two faces of relativism1

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  09 July 2009

M. A. Notturno
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Synopsis

This paper argues: (1) that analysis of the issues upon which Popper and Kuhn have been thought to differ – the possibility of conclusive falsification, the incommensurability of theories, and the existence of normal science – reveals no appreciable difference at all; (2) that the basic point of disagreement concerns the role of truth in scientific inquiry, i.e. whether or not truth should be considered the regulative ideal of science; (3) that confusion concerning these issues results from a paradigm shift in epistemology; and (4) that Popper's epistemology proves more attractive than Kuhn's for unification in psychology.

Type
Research Article
Information
Psychological Medicine , Volume 14 , Issue 2 , May 1984 , pp. 273 - 289
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1984

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Footnotes

1

This is a revised version of a paper first presented in colloquium before the Department of Psychiatry at the Johns Hopkins Medical Institutions, Baltimore, Maryland, USA.

References

Aristotle, (1941). Analytica posteriora. In The Basic Works of Aristotle (ed. McKeon, R.), pp. 108–186. Random House: New York.Google Scholar
Feyerabend, P. (1970). Consolations for the specialist. In Criticism and the Growth of Knowledge (ed. Lakabos, I. and Musgrave, A.), pp. 197–230. Cambridge University Press: Cambridge.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Feyerabend, P. (1975). Against Method. Verso: London.Google Scholar
Frege, G. (1884). Die Grundlagen der Arithmetik, eine logisch-mathematische Untersuchung über den Begriff der Zahl. Wilhelm Koebner: Breslau.Google Scholar
Gödel, K. (1931). Über Formal Unentscheidbare Sätze der. Principia Mathematica und Verwandter Systeme, I. Monatshefte für Mathematik und Physik 38, 173–198.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Husserl, E. (1900). Logische Untersuchungen. M. Niemeyer: Halle.Google Scholar
Kuhn, T. S. (1962). The Structure of Scientific Revolutions. University of Chicago Press: Chicago.Google Scholar
Kuhn, T. S. (1969). Postscript – 1969. In The Structure of Scientific Revolutions (ed. Kuhn, T. S.), pp. 174–210. University of Chicago Press: Chicago.Google Scholar
Kuhn, T. S. (1970 a). Logic of discovery or psychology of research? In Criticism and the Growth of Knowledge (ed. Lakatos, I. and Musgrave, A.), pp. 1–23. Cambridge University Press: Cambridge.Google Scholar
Kuhn, T. S. (1970 b). Reflections on my critics. In Criticism and the Growth of Knowledge (ed. Lakatos, I. and Musgrave, A.), pp. 231–278. Cambridge University Press: Cambridge.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lakatos, I. (1970). Falsification and the methodology of scientific research programmes. In Criticism and the Growth of Knowledge (ed. Lakatos, I. and Musgrave, A.), pp. 91–195. Cambridge University Press: Cambridge.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Morrell, J. & Thackray, A. (1981). Gentlemen of Science. Oxford University Press: London.Google Scholar
Notturno, M. A. (1982). Frege and the psychological reality thesis. Journal for the Theory of Social Behaviour 12, 329–344.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Notturno, M. A. (1984). Objectivity, Rationality, and the Third Realm: Justification and the Grounds of Psychologism. Martinus Nijhoff: The Hague.Google Scholar
Popper, K. R. (1959). The Logic of Scientific Discovery. Hutchinson: London.Google Scholar
Popper, K. R. (1961). Facts, standards, and truth: a further criticism of relativism. In The Open Society and Its Enemies (ed. Popper, K. R.), pp. 369–396. Princeton University Press: Princeton.Google Scholar
Popper, K. R. (1962). Conjectures and Refutations: The Growth of Scientific Knowledge. Routledge & Kegan Paul: London.Google Scholar
Popper, K. R. (1970). Normal science and its dangers. In Criticism and the Growth of Knowledge (ed. Lakatos, I. and Musgrave, A.), pp. 51–58. Cambridge University Press: Cambridge.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Popper, K. R. (1972). Objective Knowledge: An Evolutionary Approach. Oxford University Press: London.Google Scholar
Popper, K. R. (1974). Replies to my critics. In The Philosophy of Karl Popper (ed. Schilpp, P. A.), pp. 961–1197. Open Court: La Salle.Google Scholar
Popper, K. R. (1983). Realism and the Aim of Science. Rowman and Littlefield: Totowa, New Jersey.Google Scholar
Quine, W. van Orman (1960). Word and Object. MIT Press: Cambridge, Mass.Google Scholar
Tarski, A. (1944). The semantic conception of truth and the foundations of semantics. Philosophy and Phenomenological Research 4, 341–376.CrossRefGoogle Scholar