1 CApm Six )

Reflections on My Critics
"Rtjlutio,u 011 M,y Critia'' U a ltngr!.y rep!y 10 seven t.Jsays- 6y jolm /P(Jl
kiv, Toulmin, L. /Pi/Hams, Karl Popptr, 111nrg(Jrtt Mo.s ..
urmatt, lmn Laktllos, anJ Poul mort ()f ltss mii('Q/ o/
iJuu pul [MIat by Kuhn, uptcially in Tite Structure or Scientific Rovolu-
liOns. TJu. jnt fou.r of dtrne usays follnwi"g cut introJutrory
pap<r lty Kuhn, nilcd "Logit of Disromy or Psycltology of IV'<ar<A!" .u a
s;ymptuium mtitltd ''Critisrn ,., tlu e,...,;, of Knowlcdgt" ut tite FaunJ.
lnttmunO..u/ G.l/"fuium in rltt Pltl'->plty af Sa'<n, lrt/J In Lo,J., in JulJ
tg&S. fifila USCJY "'41 tompltu.J Q laru, /Ju1 t!tt twO. anJ /(ulut i
rtp/y. H'trt NH compltttJ umi/ 1!}. Afia[ tlu.Jc m tlttn puMAtd tOXttlur
._. Criticism :and ohe Growth of Knowledge. eJiuJ lty lmrt onJ
Atan Mwpa>c (LonJM: UniYtnity Puu, (9JO). RcprinuJ .,;,;,
riJt p4m1ium af Cam6riJge fJnivusisy Prus.
IT IS NO\\' POUR YllARS since Professor W;ukins and 1 cxchanged
muoually im>enetrJble vicws ao the lntemational Culloquium in o he Phi-
losophy of Science held ao lk'<iford College, London. Rercading our
conrributions. cogtlhcr with those that have since accre1td ro 1hem. 1
am tt:mpled to posit the exiscence of rwo TI1omas Kuhns.. Kuhn
1
is the
:1uthor o( 1his essay and of an earlier pie- in 1his ,olume.
1
He a.lso
"l'houp .,. b.tdor wwh. ,. ..., ... aJa.og - biiW iOr ... .,.
c. G. .. _. .,.. R. E- C....ty bocio .....,.1 ., mc1 r fino ... _,.,. .,.. oKn u..Nl
b m a ")-hX- 1 * ... put(ul to thna. but dwy
ihouJd fiOC k w..mn '" .. y "......,_
T. $. Kuhft. Lop oiiAJCJI)"'n}' cw PsyddosY cf RdOKhl .,, ..J tlt
. 1(.,...1,4J*: Prw.Juv, f tAt C.Ut!lf"4'-. .;. tr . St.t!Wt, 1.-J-
... .SIX
publish<d in 96 a book colled Tlu Srruaure of Sriontifo II<>'Oiuuw,
the one whieh he and \ lus Mostemun ab<ne. Kuhn, is ohe au-
thor of anooher book with the same tille. h is the one here cio<d reptal-
<dly by Sir Karl Popper os .,-dJliS by Profe$SOI'l Feyerabend, lakatos.
Toulmin, and Wokon. Th:u borh boob be:lr ohe <>me tille c:annoo be
altogether for the ,;t"., present <>ftn overlap and are,
in ony c>pr,...,<d in the same words. But dl<!or cenorol
:.re, 1 c-oncludc, usuM.Iy very different. As tqK)ntd by hi$ critics (hi1
original ha unformnately becn unavailable ro me), Kuhn, on
occasion ro make poinu that sub,ert essential ""pecu of the position
outlined by his m1mesake.
L1cking thc wi1 10 exoend tbis iomoducoory fanrosy, 1 will insrcad
explain why 1 ha ve embarked upon il. Much in this volume cesties ro
what 1 dC$Crihed above as the gestllt switeh tbat divides readers of
Srrurrur. into owo groups. Together <>;ith that book, ohis eollection of
es<>ys oherefore provides an extended example of wl\31 1 ha ve clsewhere
eall<d partial or incomplete communicaon-me rallting-ohrough-each-
other mal r<gularly charaeterizes dis<:ourse berwn participan!$ in in-
poinlS of \rlt'
Such communic3tion br<akdov.'!l is importan! and nds mueh srudy.
Unlike Paul Feyerabend (at least as 1 and omers ore reoding him), 1
do not belie,e th;u it is evu con! or beyond recourse. Wlu:rt' he t.dk.s
of incommensurabilioy wut rourt, 1 have regularly spoken also of portia!
c:ommunic:uion. :md l believe it can be improved upon to whatevcr
exltnt circum.smnces may dem.and and patience: pcm1itt a point to be
claboraoccl below. But do 1 belicvc, os Sir Karl does, thot tbc
sensc irl which '"we are prisoners caught in thc framework of our theo-
ries our CXJX.'Ctntion s; our pasr experiences; our language" is merely
"Pickwicki;on." Nor do 1 suppose thao "we Cln break ou1 o( our frame
work 31 any 1ime ... [in10] a beuer and roomier one ... [from which]
we con a1 any moment breo& ou1 ... again."' lf 1ha1 were
rouoinely >v:oilable, there ought to be no very special diffieuhies abou1
stepping inlo someone else's fromev.'Ork in order 10 evaluao. it. My
crities' auempcs co step into mine suggest, ho-.:ever, 1h:n o(
fromev.ork, of theory, of language, or of paradigm pose dceper prob-
lems ofbooh principie and pracrice than the pr<e<ding quor.nlons recog
.....,. ... ... 1 o...Lwo ....... (e-bridge c...bndgo u.m""Y ........
PP.. llJ .
.a. K. R. Poppet'. "Nilrml Snmcoe ltJid 1"' D.Jngm.. in C"Mvlt -.1 llk C.,.... cA f ICMwk.t.
p., ..
Rf:fi.ECTIONS ON WY CRITICS
"'
nitt. Titese problems are no1 simply those of ordinary discourse, nor
will they be resok<d by quite the same teehniques. lf they eould be,
or i( changes of framework -v.rere normal, occurring :n witl and :at ;my
moment, thty would 001 be comparable. in Sir Karl's phra,..,, ro "ohe
eulmre cWh(esJ .. hich (ha.e] stimulat<d sorne of tite greatest imdlec-
rual n:volurioou" (p. ). The very possibiliry of that comparison iJ
..ho1 makes them so \ery importom.
One especilly imeresting aspect of mis volume is, ohen, h it pro-
vides develop<d exomple of a minor culture da.sh, of the severe oom-
munic:nion diffiCtthies wltich characterize such cl>Shes, and of doe lin-
guislic: techniques deployed in the auernpt to end thern. lle:1d as an
examplc, il eould be an objec1 for srudy and analysis, providing concreoe
information conceming a rype of developmcnral episode abou1 wloich
we know vtry liule. For $0me readers, 1 suspect, the recurrcm (ailure
of mese es!lays 10 intcrsect on imellec.rual issues will providc dtis book's
gre:uest intercst. lndeed, those fa.ilures illustr.ne a phenomenon
at the hcan of my own point of ,icw) r.he book h:as th:n inrcres:c (or
me. 1 am, however, too much a parrlcipant, too dee:ply in\'Oivcd, 10
provide the onalysis ..hieh the br<akdown of communic:nion wurams.
lnstead, lhough co1winced oh!t lheir rt is frequently mispl=d
and thal i1 often obscures the dceper differenc<s beiW<en Sir Karl"s
iews ond m y own, 1 must here spe>k primarily to o he poiniS raised by
my present c:ritics..
Those pointS, cxcepling for the moment the ones in Ma ..
renmuts stimularing paper, fall intO three coherenr e-.tc.h of
which iltu.scr.ues what 1 have jusc called Lhe failurc of our discussion 10
intt:rsc.-ct on issucs. n,c firsr, for purposn of m y i" the per-
ceived diffcrence in our mcthods: logic versus history nnd social psy-
chology; normmive descriptive. These, as 1 sholl shortly ry 10
show, are odd eonlrilSts witl1 which to discriminare the contribu-
ors 10 this volume. All of us, u.nlike ohc members of wha1 has unlil
reecmly bcen t.hc ma.i.n movcmeru i.n philo.ophy of sel<!nce. do f1iuorical
research and rely boob on it nd on obsen .. on of conoemporory scien-
tists in developing our \iewpoiniS. In those viewpoiniS, furthermore,
the deriprive and the normo\'e cre inextrcably mix<d. Thougb we
may difTer in our 01an<hrds and surcly differ abou1 some manen of
subsranee, we are scaottly 10 be distinguish<d by Otor medtods. The
tide of my earlicr paper, "logic of Oiscovery or Psychology of Ro-
seorch?" woo no1 chosen to suggest ..hat Sir K>rl oug4t todo bu1 rad1er
l"O dcscrib.: JIH$. When Lak.ams writes, .. Btu Kuhns conceptual
CHAPTER SlX
frnmework .. . is mine is nommive,"' I can only
think that he is employing n lcight of hond '" r<-<erv< the philosophical
mande for lmself. Surely Feyerabend is riglu in daming that my work
rcpeatedly mak<s nonnative cloims. EquaU;- un:ly, though the point
\Vill rcqujre more Laknros''l posirion is sociaJ .. psychologic.al
in irs rcpeatcd relia.nce on dl!cisions govemed not by logical ruk-s but
by the mature s<-nsibility of Ule traind scknrist. Ifl differ from Lakotos
(or Sir Karl, FeyerabMd, Toulmin, or Watltins), it is with respect to
substance rother than me10d.
As tO suhstance, our most apparent dTerence is about normal sci-
ence, dte topic to which I shaU tum immdiately aftcr discussing
mcthod. A disproporrionate pan of this volume is devoted to normal
science, and it caUs forth sorne of the oddest rhewric; normal science
does not ex.ist ancl is unimeresting. On this issue we do disagree, bur
001, ( think, either consequentiaiJy Or in Lhe ways my C:rhC:S suppose4
When l r.tkc it up, l sball dcal in part with ll1e real difficulties in retriev-
ing normal scicnfic tradjtiOil$ from history, but my tirst and more cen-
tral poim will be 3 logical one. The existence of normal science is a
corollary of thc existence of revolutions, a point in Sir Karl's
pnp<r nnd I!Xplioit in Lnkoros's. lfir did nor exist (or ifir nonossen-
rial, d.ispensable for science), tben revolutions would be in jeopardy
also. IJut. about the lotter, 1 and my critics (excepting Toulmin) agree.
Rcvolutions through criticism demand normal sciencc no less t11an
revolutions through crisis. lnevirablyl the term 'cro:;s..purposes' berter
catches the namre of our discourse thnn 'disagreemem'.
Discussion of nomlal scence ra ses the third set of issues abour whch
criticism has here dustered: t11e namre of the change from o ne normal-
scicntifrc trndition to :mother and of thc techniques by wlch thc rt-
sulring conflicts are resolved. My critics respond 10 my views on this
subjoct with charges of irrorionality, relativism, and the defense of mob
ntle. Thesc are all labels which 1 caregorically rejoct, even when they
are used in m y defcnsc by Feyerohcnd. To say that, in matters of theory
choice, che fo rce of logic and observaon cannot in principie be
ling is ncithcr to discard logic and obscrvation nor to suggest th:n there
are- not good rcasons fo r favoring o ne tl-u.. >ory anothe r. To say that
sciemists a re, in such mauel"$, the highest coun o f appt.al is
neither to defend mob rule nor to suggest that scientists couJd have
;. l. -Fab.ik.\.Uon aM l.lk ofScltncilk Rtw:-arch Pmgnntmo.. .. !11 Cf'iti
(tlM QIIJ t.4( G/fiVit , /Vti,..IIJg,. p. .,.
RErLECTJO:-IS ON MY CRITICS
"7
decided lO accept any theory at all. In this arca, too, my critics and I
differ, bw our poin1s of difference have yet m be seen fo r what they are.
These three set.s of iss-ues- method, nonnaJ science, and mob rule-
are the ones which bulk largest in this volume and, for that reason, in
my response. 13ut m y reply cannot close without going one step beyond
them to cons.ider the problem of paradigms ro which Miss Mastcnnan's
essay is devoted. 1 concur in her judgmenr that the term ' p:tradigm'
points to the centro! philosophical aspect of my book but that its treat-
ment there is badly confused. No aspect of my v;ewpoint has evolved
more since the book was written, and ber paper has helped in that devel-
opment. Though my present pos-ilion diffcrs from hers in many details,
we approach 'he problem in the samc spirit induding a oommon convic ..
rion of d1e relevance of the philosophy of language and of memphor.
I shall not here be able ro deal at all fully with the problems presented
by rny initia.l treatment of paradigms, but rwo considerations necessicate
m y wuching upon them. E ven hrief discussion shouJd pennit the isola-
tion o f two qui1e different ways in which tl1e u! rm is deploy'.od in my
book and tbus eliminare a cons1ellalion of confusions which has hand
capped me as well as my critics. The resulring clarilication will, in addi-
tion, pemit me ro suggest whar I to be rhe roor of m y siHgle mosr
fundamt'fltal clifference from Sir Karl.
He and his followers share with more trndirional philosophers of
science the assumpon tha t the problem of Lheory choice can be resolved
by techniques which are semantically neutral. The observational conse-
quences of both 1eories are tirst stated in a shared basic vocabulary
(not necessariJy complete or permanent). Sorne comparative
of their truth/f;Jsity coum then provides dte bas-is for a choice berweer1
them. For Sir Karl and his school, no less rhan for Camap and Reichcn-
bach, canons of rnrionality thus derive exclusive! y from those of logical
and linguistic syntax. Paul Feyerabend provides dre e.ception which
proves that rule. Denying the existenct of a vocabula.ry adequatt ro
neutral observation report.s, he 3t once concludcs ro rhe intrinsic irrmio ..
naliry of tbeory choice.
That conclusion is surely Pickwicki3n. No process essenti:JI ro scien ..
titic developmem can be labeled 'irracional' wrhout vast violence to the
term. lt is tlterefore fortunare that lhe concJusion is unnecessary. One
can den y, as Feyerabend and Ido, the existence of a n observmion lan
guage shared in its enrirery by two theori<s and still hope to preserve
good reasons for choosing berween them. To ach_ieve th:u goal, how-
ever1 philosophers of science will need 10 foJlow o ther contemporary
... CHAP1'tR SIX
in "<"mining, ro a pr<viously unpr<ttdtntcd dtpth, the
manner in "'hch fits tht world. osking how tem" attaeh 10
na1ure, how 1hose auachments are leamtd. and how they are rransmiued
from on< g<ntr.nion 10 anot:her by t:ht mtrnben of a languag< commu-
niry. Bcause p>rad.gms, in on oC t:ht rwo stparablc aen>d of che term,
are fundamtnt>l ro m y om attempts ro answer qutstions of that son,
tbey must aliiO lind a place in this essay.
MttAuJoloy: TAt Role of History anJ Socioloay
Doubts :tbout 1hc appropria1eness of my methods ro my conclusions
un he nwny o{ thc essays in this volume. History and sochd psyd1ology
ore not, my critics claim, a proper basis for philosophical condusions.
Their reserv.,ions are no1, bowever, aU of a piecc. 1 shall tlotrefore
coMider s.riatim tht somowhot difforent foml< tltey .U.e in the essays
by Sir Korl, Watkins, Feytrab<nd, and Lakatos.
Sir K>rl condudes bis paper by pointing out that to him "the idoa
of ruming for tnlightenmenr conc:rming the aims of scltnce, and IS
possible progrtss, 10 sociology or psyehology (or ... 10 tbe history of
sclenee) is surprising and disappointing .... bow," he asks, "can the
.-.gress to thtse oft<n spurious sclenees hdp us in this panicular diffi-
culty?"'' 1 o.m puuled to k.now what these runark.s intmd, for in thl$
o.rea 1 tloink there are no differeoce$ betwe<n Sir Karl and myself. Jf
he me:1n5 rh;u the generaliz.ations which const:itule receivtd thMries in
sociology ond psychology (and are weak recds from which
10 wcavc n philosophy of seience, 1 couJd not agrte mor< heartily. My
work rclics on thern no more than hjs, lft on tl1e Olhcr hQnd, he is
clallomging the relovanee 10 philosophy of scence of the $<>rts of obser-
vatons collected by historians and sociologiSil, [ wonder how his own
work is 10 be understood. His wrirings are crowdcd with historical <x-
arnples 3nd v.idl gt'ner:.lizarions a.bour scienric beha\ior, sorne of rhem
dt.cussed in my oarlitr essay. Ho does write on historical themes, and
ho cito those popers in his centr.tl pbilosopbieal .. orks. A consisten
intcrest in historical problems and a ..,;Uingttess to engage in original
his10rieal r<Search distinguishts the men be lw trained from the mem-
bers of ony othtr CU<ffnt scbool in pbilosophy of scltnc:e. On thtse
pointS 1 am an unrepentant Popperian.
R.6FLBCTIOS$ O!'t MY CIUTICS
"'
John Wotkins voice$ a differeot son of doubt. Early in hs paper he
writts that "methodology ... is eoneemed ..,;lb scienee at its best, or
with scl<nce as it should be conducted, rathcr than ..,;lb hck scltnee,
a point ..,;,h which, at least in a more carcful formularion, 1 fully agree.
Lattr he argues that wbat 1 . called normal scltnc:e is hock sclenu,
and he then aslts why 1 am so eoocemed 10 up-v:olue Nonnol Seienco
and down-value Extraordinary Science" (p. t). In so fu as that ques-
rion , about normal science in particular, 1 reserve my re-sponse umil
latcr ( which point l hallattempt also to unravcl Watkins's cxtraordi-
nary distortion of my position). But Watkins seems aliiO 10 be nsking
a more general qucnion, one thar relates closcly 10 an i.ssue raised by
Feyerabend. 8oth grano, m least for tbe sake of oheir argumcnt, that
scienlists do behave as 1 have said they do (1 shall later consider their
qualilications of tha1 concession). Why should the philosopher or meth-
odologist, thoy then ask, take the facrs seriously? He is, aftor all, con-
cerned not with full descriprion of scicnee but witb discovory of
tht of the eruerpse, i.e., with r.ationaJ rccon.stmction. By
what right and whot crittria does the hi .. orian/ observer or sociologist/
obs6ver tell the pbilosopher which Faas of sclentilic life he must include
in his reconstruction, whcb he may
To avoid lengthy disquisitions on the philosophy of history and of
sociology, 1 restrict myself 10 a peNOnal response. 1 om no less ron-
cerned with n.tiona1 reconstrucon. with the ditiCOvery o(
than are philosoph<N of sclence. M y objecrive, too, is n
Of S<:iente, O( 1he rt3.SOM (or its speciaJ effic;tcy, of tl1 cognicive &131U$
of itS thcorits. Out unlike most philosophers of scencc, 1 begn as a
historian o( seienoe, examiningdosely 1he fact.S of scien1Uic life. H:wing
discovered in the proce .. that much scientific hehovior, including that
of the vcry greottst scientistS, persistently violmtd accepted mcthod-
ological eanons, 1 had 10 ask "'hy those failures ro oonfonn did not seen
at all to inhibit the succ<SS of tloe When l la ter dscovercd that
an v1ew o( the n:lrurc of scicnc:c what pt'f!vioutly
seomed aherrant behovior into an <SS<ntial part of an explanotion for
sclence's suecas, che discovery ,..,.. a source of ronlidence n that new
uplanotion. M y criterion for emphasizing any panicular ospect of scien-
tilic behavior is thorefore not simply that it oeeurs, nor merely that it
oceun frequently, but rather that it fits a theory of sclenfic knowledge.
, .. J. W. N. W..ti , Apjmc 'Nomu! i:n Cn'Ul:UM .-.u/ ,Ac C...tA .
p.
OJ O CIIAPTBR S IX
Con,ersely, my conlidence in rJw meory derives from its ability lO
make cohtffllc =se of many facts which. on an oldtr -"ew, had been
tich'" abemnc or irrel.,,.nt. Re.ders will a c:rcula.ricy in me
argumenr, buc it iJ not \.-icions. and in presettet doa not at aU distin-
guish my vicw from "-of n>y criucs. Here, coo, 1 am b<ha\'
ing os chey do.
n my criceria for discriminating betwcen che essential and nones-
senciolelemencs of nbser<ed scientifu: bebovior ""' toa significanc extcnt
chcorecicol provides al so an answer to whar f eyerabend calls dcc amhi-
gcchy o( my prcsencacion. A"' Kuhn's remarks abouc sciencilic develop-
ment1 he to be read as descripons or prescriptons?' TI1c answcr,
of eou....,, is ch:11 chcy should be read in bod1 way ac once. 1( 1 bave
a theory o( how and why sc:ience wotks, il muSt necessarily have impli
cations for che way in which scienrists shoold behavc if chcir encerprise
is 10 flouri sh. TI1c Slrueture of my argumenc is simple and, J 1hink,
uncaoepcionablc: scientisrs behave in the following ways; those modes
o( behavior hve (he"' 1heory encers) che following essential funetions;
in tht- of an altmu.te mode tIJJ '()ulJ strYc .si'mihu JU11cricns,
scitnrisu should behavt tsSenally as they do if thcir concem is 10
improve scientihc
Note thac nothing in that argument sets the vlue o( science
and that ftyerabend's "plea for hedonism (p. 109) is correspondingly
irrdtv:anc. Panly bcc-du.se they have misconstru<: my prcscri.ption (a
poinc 10 which 1 shall "''um), both Sir Karl and Feyerabtnd find men-
nce in che encerprisc 1 ha ve described. h i.s "liable to corncpt our under-
sconding and diminish our pleasure" (Feyerab<nd, p. 109); ic is "a dan-
ger . , . indecd to our civili7.ation" (Sir Karl, p. 1)). 1 arn not led 10
th:u cvt1lua1 ion nor :an many of m y readers, but nothing in m y argu
mem depends on IS bting wrong. To expi:Un why an emerprise works
is no1 10 approve or disapprove it.
l.okacos's paper raises a founh problem about method, nd il is che
most fundamental of al l. 1 have aJready confessed m y inability to under-
stand whac he means when he says things likt, Kuhn 's conceprual
frome,.'Ork ... is socio-psychological: mine is normotivc." lf 1 ask,
however. not what be intcnds, but why he finds chis son o( rhe1oric
oppropriatc, an imponanc poin1 emerges, on< that is almos1 explicit in
" P K. r., .. "c....Lot""" ro. el>< Spcciomo.-., c,;,;,.,..,..w c-..x-JJp.
p. lf$. rOf -' (a, cktptt W ll'IOft d.l'dI ofiOil'W CON<tlti 1n ht"' fht d6tripri,,.e
..M tflfrgt>. xc- S. MU$1 Wc W'b.l1 We Sayt in A(,.,., W, M1.ut ll'l.t
W, $d) 'l A 8()(llt f EJH.JI Y0tk: Scrlhcler. 1969), pp. 1- .. J.
RBFLitCTIONS ON Nl' CA.ITICS
'"
the firs1 porogroph of his section 4 Sorne of che pnciples deployed in
my explanation o( scienoc ...., irreduc:bly soc:ological, at least at this
imt. In ponioular. confromed ,.; ,h the problem of 1htory choioe, thc
srronurt o ( my ""Jll"SC runs roughly as follo""' takc a group o( thc
ablest ., .. ilablc people wich the mosr appropriate motivacion; train chem
in some scence and in speciahies ...-ant o the choice :u hoand;
imbue them .,,,h the value system, lhe ideology
1
current in chtir di$ci.
pline (and 10 o grtot cJ<ttnt in 01her scienfic fields os well); and, finolly,
/ti tlttm ma,X_t tlfe /,m'c.t . [f t_hal technique dot:S OOT :ICC.'OUOC for scientific
<levtlopment as we know it, Uu.':n no other will. There be no ser
of rules of choice adequatc 10 dicr.uc desircd 1iuJividiJGI in 1he
concrete casc::J lluu sdcntists will mee1 in the course of their
\Vh:uever scientilic J)rogress muy be, we must account for it by examin-
ing the na tu re of 1he scitntific gt'Oup, di.scovering wh:u il vnlues, what
ic and what it disdains.
Th:u position is inuinsie-.ill) sociologca1 and. as such, a rctre;tt
from the canons of explana on lic<nsed by the cradicions ._,hich Lalunos
l.abeb jusrialionism illnd falsificarionism, boh dognuuic naivt. 1
5hllll lat<r ipify it funbcr iiMI it. But my prtsent concem is
simply wich t$ >trueturt, which both Labtos and Sir Karllind unaccept-
able in principie. M y quemion i.s, why should chey? Boch rq><atedly use
arguments o( the samt themsrelva .
Sir K:.rl doa not, il is l'rue, do so al1 the rime. Thac p;an of hi$
writing which seeks an algorithm for verisimilirude would, if ucc<'SSful.
eliminate all need for recourse 10 group valuts, to judgmenc> mode by
minds prtpored in a partictdar way. But. as 1 pointed out ac the end o(
my previous cssny, are many passagts throughout Sir Karl's wric-
ings which can only be read a,s descriptions of thc v:lltteli. and auitude.s.
which sciemiscs must if, whe:n the chips :are down, 1hcy are 10
succeed in i.idv:.nc-ing thcir enterprise. Lakatos's sophistieated (:.lsificaa
onism goes even funher. In all but a few rt'Sp<Cts, only '"'O o( thcm
C"SSCn&il*l, hi j now \ery do-seto my own. Amnng the rnpect<t
in whkh wt though ht has nor yet seen it, is our common u.se
o( explanatory principies 1hat ...., ullimaely sociological or ideological
in s.tructurc.
lakotos's sophiSticated falsificarioni.sm i.obccs numbtr of iues
about which KiCniSI$ empJoying the mcchod must mue deci<ions, indi-
vidual! y or collcccively. (1 discrust thc tcrm 'decision' in this conctxt
since ic implie1 conscious de:liberalion on ead issue prior 10 1ht anump
rion of 1.1 rde::arch sr2nce. For the moment, however. 1 &hall use ir. UntiJ
CllAPTrm SI X
the lasr se<:tion o{ this paf"'r very lnle will depend upon rhe distinction
between making a d...;sion and finding onesclfin the posirion tbat would
ha ve resuhed from mak.ing Scientislll must, for eomple, dende which
statements to make "unfalsifinble by fiDI" and which not.; Or, dealing
with a probabilistic theory, they must decide on a probability threshold
bdow which statistical .:vlden<>! will he held "uu:onsistl<llt'' with that
theory (p. t"')). Above all, vil'Wing theories as research programs to
be evaluaced over time, s.cicntisrs must whether a given program
at a given time is "progressive .. (whence stienc) or "'degenerave"'
(whcnce pseudo-scientiJic) (p. n8 ff.). lf the first, it is w be pursued;
if the lauer, rejected.
Notice now that a caiJ for decisions like these may be read in Ewo
ways. h may be rakcn tO nan1e or describe decision points for which
procedures in concrete cases must srill be supplied. On this
reading l...:tka10s has yec co cell us how sciemislS are to select che panicu
lar Statements that are to be unfalsiJiablc by their fia<; he musr also srill
specify critcria which can be used at the time to distinguish a degenera-
tivc from a progcssivc <esearch program; and so on. Orherwis<, he
has tOid us nothing at all. Alrernarively, bis remarks about the need for
particular decisions may be read a$ al.re:ady complere descriptlons (:u
least in form- tlteir particular content may be prelitninary) of direc-
Livcs, or maxims which the scientist is requircd 10 follow. On ds imer-
pret<uion, the third decision direcdve would rcad:
04
As a scientist., you
may nor refrain from deciding wherher your resean:h program is pro-
gressive or degeneral'ive, and you must rake the consequences of your
detision, abandoning the program in one case, pursuing it in the othcr:
Corrt'Spondingly, the second directive would read: "Working witb a
probabilistic theory, you musr consrandy ask yourself,vhethcr the result
of so me particular expcrimenr is not so improbable as co be inconsistcm
wit-h your thoory, arld you must, as a scienti.*'t, also ans-wer." Finally,
rhe rst directive would read: ''/\$a sc:ientisr, you wiJI ha ve ro take risks,
choosing ccrtain st3temems as the basis for your work and ignoring, at
least until your research program has develof"'d, all actual and potemial
auacks upon them ...
Thc SC.."(Ond reading is, of course, far weaker rhan tite firsr. lt demands
the same decisions, but it neither supplies nor promises ro supply rules
which would dictate rl1eir outcomes. lnstead, ir assimilates these deci ..
RBFLECT IONS ON CRlTt CS
))
sions to judgments of value (a subject about which J sha.ll have more
to say) rathcr than t'O measuremcnrs or say, of weiglu.
Nevertheless, conceived merely as imperarives which commit che scien-
tlst to making cer1ain sortS of dec-i sions, these direct:ives are snong
enough to affect scientific developrnent profoundly. A group whosc
mcmbers felt no obligarions to wresde with suc.h decisions (but which
insread emphasiz.ed others, or none at all) would behave in notably
dill'erent wnys, and dteir discipline would change accordingly. Though
La.karos's discussion of his dccsion directives is often equivoca!, 1
believe that it is just this second sorc of efficacy upon which his meth ..
odology d<f"'nds. Cerrainly he does litde to specify algorithms by
which the dedsions he demands are to be made, and the 1enor of hi.s
discuss-ion of naive and dogmatic falsificationism suggests t.h:u he no
longer thinks sueh specificalion possible. Jn that C3Se, however. his deci
sion imperatives are, in fonn though not always in coment, idemicul
to my own. TI1cy spccify idc.--ological cornmitments whicb sdentists must
.share if their cntetprise is to succeed. They are therefore irreducibly
sociological in cl-le same sense and 10 t.he same extent as m y explan.atory
principies.
Under these circ:urnsrances 1 am oot sure wh.ar Lakatos is criticizing
or what, in thl$ arca, he dtinks we disagree about. A str.mgc footnotc
late in h.is paper may, however, providc 3 due:
are l'W() ki'rui.J t>fpsydwlugtt( philt>Jophiu ACCQrding co one
kind rherc can be no philosophy of science: only a psychology of individual
scientists. According 10 the orhcr kind there is 3 psydwlogy of the
tifie; idta.l," or mind: this tums phloSphy of scicn: inro a
psychology of this ideal mind . . Kuhn does nor seem to have notioed
tbis disrinetion. (p. tSo, n.J)
lfl understand him correctly, Lakatos idemifies tiJe firstltind ol' psychol-
ogisc philosophy of science "'rith me, the second wiLh himself. But he
is misunders1anding me. We are not nearly so f;u apan as his descriprion
would suggest, and, where we do difl'er, bis literal position would dc-
mand a renunciation of our common goal.
Parr of what Lakatos is rejecng is explanations that demand rccourse
to the facrors which individuare particular scicnrists ("thc psychology
of the individual scicnrist" versus "the psychology of the . . . 'normal'
mind'). But tb;u does not separate us. re<:Ourse has been exclusively
1 J
CIU.PTHR SIX
co social psychology (1 prefer 'sociology'), a f.eld quice diiTer<nc from
individual psydoology r<iter.ned n mes. Correspondingly, my unic for
purposn of oxplan>cion is the normal (i.e., nonpothological) scienrific
group, occounc taktn of the foct thac itS diffor buc noc
o( whac makcs >ny gien individual unique. In addition, Lakacos would
like 10 r<jeCI di0$C charaaeristics of cvcn norm:ol scicnf.c minds which
make ahem che minds of human beings. Appor<ndy he seos no other
10 reain Lhe methodology of an ideal scit'nce in explaining 1ht
observed succcss of accu>l sciencc. Bua his way will noc do if he hopcs
10 lll<l>lain an encerprise prcriced by people. Thcr< ar< no ideal minds,
and thc "psychology of d1is ideal mind" is d1erefore unavailable as
basis for cxplanoaion. Nor is Lakacos's monner of incroducing the ideal
ncc..-dcd to achicvc what he aims :&t. Shared ideals :dl'ec:1 bchavior without
making doo:ro who hold doem ideal. The type of cuestion 1 ask hos
thereforc becn: how will a paniculat constellation of beliefs, values, ond
impcrJtivcs affect group My explanarions lollow from che
answtr. 1 :am not sure Lak3t'OS me3n:s anytbing tlst':, bur, ifhe docs no11
the"' is noching in tbis arca for us to disagrce aboua.
Having misconmued the sociologic:ol b3se of my posirion, Lakotos
and my othcr critics inevilllbly f.l 10 norc a $J>Cl fcooru"' which fol
lows from taking che normal group rather than the normol mind as
unh. Ghen shared algorithm odequote, let us say, to individual choice
compcting theories or to the identification of anomaly,
all mcrnbers of scienrific group .. re><h the sarne decision. Thoc
would be che e>se even if the algorithm were probabiliscic, for all chose
who uscd it would evaluate the evidence in the same way. 1l1e effects
of a shared ideology, however. are less unifonn, for itsrnode of
tion is of a diO'erenc son. Given a group all the mccnbers of which are
eommittcd to choosing bctween altemar.ive thc..-ories und also 10
cri.ng suc:h as accur3cy, simplicity, scope, and so on while m:aking
thcir choice, the concrete decisions of individual membcts i t\ individual
coses will nevertheless vaty. Group wiU be affected dccisively
by thc sbared commitmentS, buc individual choice will function al.so
0
( personolity, educoaion, and the prior potttm of professional r<SCarclo.
(Thcse ,,.riables .,. the province of indi,.;du:ol psychology.) To many
of my critics this variabi.liry seems a weakness of my position. When
considtring che problems of crisis and of theoty choice 1 sholl want,
l10we er. tO orgue that it is insceod a strtngth. IJ a decision must be rtlllde
under ci""'msr.1noes in wbicb eveo tite most deliberoto and considered
judgmcnt ""Y be wrong, ic may vita.lly imponant that different indi
RSf'LECTIONS ON MY CI\ITICS l)j
viduls decide in di!Terent ways. How tlse could che group os whole
hedge its

NormGI Stiflttt: /u ond F:tnctiottl
As to methocls, thcn, tite ones 1 ornploy are noc significa.ntly different
from those of my Poppean crirics. Applying t.hosc: methods, we, of
courk, draw somewhat different conclusions. but even thty 3rt no. so
far aprt $everl of my crirics believe.ln pardcular, 11 of us exccp11ng
Toulmin share che conviction that the central <.-pisodcs in scientjflc :1d ..
vance- those which moke the game wordo playing and dtc play worth
srudying- are revolutions. Watkins is constructing an opponent from
his own scrow when he me as having "down-valued" scicmific
revolmions, taken a "phiiOS<>phical dislike" 10 thern, or suge.ted chal
they "con hardly c:olled science :oll."' Discovering tite puuling
no cure of revolutions was what drew me 10 hi>tory and philosophy of
scitnce in the first pl><e. Almos everything 1 bave wriurn in..: dels
with them, a fo.ct which Watkins poims out and then ignores.
Ir, hoevor, we agr<e about this much, we cannot altogether disogr<e
about normal science, the 05peCI of m y work .,.Jch most disaurbs m y
presen1 eritics. By 1heir n.;arure revolurjon.s a.nnot be the whole of
ence: somtthing difforcnt must necessarily go on in Sir Karl
setS up tite point odmirably. Underlining whac 1 have alwoy recognized
as one o( our principal artas of agreemem, he s1resses thttt ""scientists
nts.sarily devdop their ideas within a dcfinilc thoorctical ftamtwork" .'
0
For hirn
1
a.s forme, furthermore, r<>volutions demand such Cromeworks
1
since they always in vol ve the rejeccion and replacemcnt of a fromework
or of liOme of its integral ports. Since tle science which 1 call normal
is precisely ...,,...Jrdo within framework, it con only be che opposite
side of coin the face of which is revolutiorl>. No wonder Sir Karl
h.aJ bttn lodlmly aware of rhe distinction .. betwecn normal s.ciencc and
...volu1ions (p. p). lt follows from his premises.
L 1( ...,._ mociV*t wtrC' 1101 .u mue. dw pme dfen cauW b. .:fl.nft b) ,,.. ; 1Ci1Jc
. .........,. .......... ................................. -.... -
cheoritt.. lht n;tQ nctJO!ft to drpcnd OA the o/ dw pn')baWnbe 4 cioe
du.l My poiftt by ttduc:Do ablwdwn.
,_ Wad1at. "'Apimt 'NO!nDil pp. 1l.. anct.a,_
10. Pclppn. NomW p. s. iDID .lcf.ed. Unlc:w apliddy noclf'Cl. ,t i&aM-
., cht q'IIOW.ont .n W PliP"' arr in die: oWk
.,. ClUP1'ER SIX
Something el>e follows os wdl. lf &aroeworlu are neccssary 10 ..:ien-
IUIS, if 10 break with one i i.nevi<ably 10 break into another- points
which Sir Kllrl embrace$ up!icitl)-then the hold of a framework on
a >Cicn1is1's mind m y not be occowutd for mml,y as the muh of his
having """"" hadl) r>ught, ... a \'aim of mdoctrintion" (p. 1)). Nor
may i1, as W tlnns supposcs, be uplouned by referenee 10 the
pr<valence of thlrdr3tt mutd._ fit only for "plodding. uncritical" work."
Thost things do ed>t, :md mos1 of them do damag<. Nevertheless, if
frameworlu are 1he prcrequisitt of their grip on tite mind is
nor merc.ly "Pu.:kw1ckian/' nor can it be quite right to uy th:n, "if we
try, we e:tn break om of our fra.mework at any ti.me."
11
To be simulra-
nt.'Ously cs.scni:II a11d freely dispensible is very nerly :a contr;adiclion
i.n terms. M y critics become incoherent wben they embrace it.
Non e uf tha1 is said in an effon to show tlmt m y cri1ics really agree
.. .;,h me, if only they knew i1. They do not! Rather I a.m trying, by
eliminating irrelevoncies, 10 discover what we disagre< abou1. l hove
so far argutd tha1 Sir Karl' s phrase 'revolu<ions in permanente' does
001, any more 1hon 'square circle', describe a phcnomcnon thot could
exist. F' r3m<WOrks mus1 be Uvtd witb and uplored before they c:an be
brokcn. But does not imply tMI ouglu no1 o m 01
framework-breaking, bowever unobru.uble that goal. 'Revolurions in
permanenc:e' rould name an imponan1 ideologa.! lfSir Kllrl
and 1 :u a.ll abou1 normal science, i1 is over this point. He and
bis groop r,'ll< 1hat 1he scientist should ery at all times 10 be 3 eri1k
ond 3 prolifcr>tor of al1emate theories. 1 urge the desirabili1y of an
:them;ue str3tegy which reserves such for spccial occasions.
Tit:u disagrecmenr, being res:triote-d to rescarch scrategy, is alrcady
n3rrower Lhan 1he onc my cri1ics have envis.agcd. To sce what is ;u
stoke i1 rnust be n>rrowtd furtlter. Everything th3t has been said so far,
though phrased for ..:ience and scientists, applies equally to a number
of other fi< lcls. My methodological pmcrip1ion is, howevcr, direc1td
exdusively 10 the sciences and, among them, 10 those 6elds whieh dis-
play the special developmenal panem known as progress. Sir Korl
neody utche< the diStinction 1 have in mind. Al the st>rt of his p3per
he 'O'Ttes: 'A >Cienrist cngaged in a pieee of r<S<arch ... go a1
onee 10 the h ... n of .. . an organiztd structure ... (and of) a gcnerally
ocxep1td probltmsiruarion ... peaving) i1 10 01hers to 61 his rontribu
u. w,.-.-. "'Apn 'Normal Scwnet','"' p. ) .t.
u. ... p. J6.
RIFLiiCTI ONS OS MY CJI\ITICS
.,,
tion into the framework of >Cien<ific knowltdge.' ... the philosopher,"
he rontinues, "finds himstlfin a differcn1 position."
11
Neverthelm, Mv-
ing pointed 10 the ditTermce, Sir Karl there:te.r ignores h, recomme-nd
ing the same stra1egy to both scien<ists and philosophers. In the piOClCSS
he misses 1he ronsequenees for researcb design of the special detail and
precision with as he >ays, the &amowork of a morure >Cience
infonns lis prxtitioners what to do. In the absenc:e of 1hsu det:.iled
guidance, Sir Karl's srrateg)' seems 10 me the very best available.
h will no1 induce the special developmcntal pauen> which choracterizes,
say, physics, bu1 neither will any otber mcthodologic>l pnlscription.
Given a framework which does provide such guidanee, however, Lhen
1 do int.cnd my merhodological recommendat:ions to upply.
Consider for o moment rhe evolution of philosophy or of the arts
since the end of the Renaissan<e. n,.,., are fields oftcn contraSttd wi1h
c.he esrablished sciences as ones which do not progress. contrast
cannot be due to t.he absence of uvolutions or of 3n intervening mode-
of normal pr.l(tice. On the contrary, long befare the similor strucrur<
o( scien<ific developm<nl was norictd. histOrian$ ponraytd 1hese fields
as devdoping through a succession of uadirions punctuo1td by revolu
tion1ry :olterations of artistic style nd bsle Or of philosophical view
poin1 and goal. Nor can the ronttaSI be due 10 the absence from philoso-
phy and the ans of Popperian methodology. M Mi.<S Mosterman
observes for philosophy," 1.hese are juSI 1he fields in which il is bes1
exemplifitd, in which praetitioners do find eurr<nl tradi1ion stiRing, do
struggle 10 break with it, and do regular\ y seek a sryle ora philosophic:ol
viewpoint of their own. In the arts, in particular, the work of men who
do not s-uccttd in innovation is described as 'derivative', a term of dero-
gation .signiflc;mtly absent from scientific discoursc, which docs. on the
othcr bond, repeatedly refer 10 'fads'. In none of rhese flelds, wltether
aru or philosoplty, does the practirioner who fails to alter troditional
praetiee lmve signifie>nl impact on tbe discipline' S devclop01tn1.'
1
Thcse
. ,. "NomW Srim:t. .. ,.. , . Rc*n- ... kno m, 1 R.nMo-
o(Chicog!> p-.... , bow<b<ly su K.d' ,.. ... -.......
id& b 110 ochm, 11) "' .. w., che fnmon,.'Or\ ol tnrftbli,t \.M'> l.rdct .. c-.--. J:h,t
iep' AM o( ey dtiaipot o! nornuJ Itna'.
... 14.-..,... s ... -.of l'>ndop.- .. c.;,;,;.._..., ,.., 1t
t). FOf Wtt c/4ilrmncts artttbC and
.... = t de\-cloprntnul plUft'M. tft'my Gommomt [on tbt md
An), e-y...,;.., SI.Jiu s.mty-' HiMt]' u ( a96t) : oJ-U;. tcpnK'd M -<"..ocNncm a.
tht kdMiont tMI Art, ia 1lc F..uuvial T uu;...: Sdmt.l St.Wiu.,. W,.,.J< T,.Ji,_,
,., Uni\'fNI)' a{ '9'77). fP .
' ..
CliAPTER SIX
are, in short, ftelds lO which Sir K3rl's rncthod is cssemial because wilh-
our constam criticism and the prollferation of new modes of pracc:ice
lhere would be no revolutions. Substiluting my own melhodology for
Sir KarJs wouJd induce sragnnrion for exactly the reasons my crirics
undcrscore. In no obvious seuse, howevcr, docs hi.s met.hodology pro-
duce progress. Tite relation of pre .. to practice in
these fields is nol what we have leamed ro expect from thc devdoped
sciences.
My critics will sugges1 that dte reasons for that diRerence are obvi-
ous. Fields like philosophy and tl1e arts do no1 claim 10 be sciences,
nor do they satisfy Sir Karl's demarcatioo criterion. They do that
is, gcneralc resulrs which can in principie be lested through a poim-by-
point comparison wirh nature. But that argument seems t.o me mistaken.
Without satisfying Sir Karl's criterion dtese fields could not be sciences,
but lhey could nevenheless progress as 1he sciences do. In antiquity
and during the Renaissance, the ans U1an tbe sciences provided
1hc accep1ed paradigms of progress." Few philosophers 6nd reasons of
principie why d1eir field should not move steadily ahead, though many
bemoan its failure to do so. ln any case, there are many fields- I sltall
them proto-se:iences-in which does generate te-stable con-
clusioos bu1 whicb nonetheless rcsemble philosophy and the arrs rad1er
than thc established sdences in their devclopmemal pauems. 1 r.hink,
for example, of fields ke chemisrry and electriciry b<fore lhe mid-
cighteemh cenlury, of the srudy of heredity and phylogeny before the
mid-nineleemh, or of many of the social sciences today. In these fields,
wo, though they s.atisfy Sir Karl's demarcation criterion, incessam criti ...
cism and continua) striving for a fresh sran are prima_ry forces, and
need lO be. No more than in philosophy and the ans, however, do they
resuh in dear-t:ut progre:ss.
1 conclude, in short, dtat the proto-sciences, like the arts and philoso-
phy, lack sorne elemem which, in the mature sciences, permits the more
obvious fonns of progress. h is not, howe,er, anything that a method-
ologkal prcscrip<ion can provide. Unlike my presen1 critics, Lakatos at
Litis point included, 1 claim no therapy 10 assist the 1ransforma<ion of
a proro-sciencc t<> a scienc:e, nor do 1 suppose th::u anydng of the son
is 10 be had. If, as Ftyerabend suggesrs, sorne social scien1ists lake ftOm
me the view th01 lhey can improve lhe srnrus of tbeir field by first
16. E. H. (;Qmbth, An oM /llw* A StuJy ,,. rM o/ PietorrG.' R.tprm11um""
Vqrlt: 1'}6o). pp. u ti.
RBFI.ECTJONS ON MY CRIT ICS
' 19
legishuing agreemem on fundamentals and t.hen ruming to puzzJe-.
soiving, they are badly misconsrruing m y point." A sentence 1 once
used when discussing the special efficacy of marl1em:uical theories ap-
plics equally hcrt: "As in individual developmem, so in the scientific
group, ma!Urity comes most sureiy 10 1hose who know how to wait.""
Fonunatdy, though no prescription will force ir, che trnnsition to matu-
rity docs come 10 many fields, and it is well wonh waiting and strug-
to attain. E.o'lch of the curremly cst-ablishcd sciences has emerged
from a previously more spcculative branch of natural philosophy) medi
cine, or the cnts at some relatively well defined period in the past.
Other fields will surdy cxpericnce thc samc transition in the future.
Only after it occurs does progress becomc an obvious: charaetcristic of
a field. And only then do those prescriptions of mine which my critics
decry come inlo play.
About the n3ture of that change 1 ha ve wrinen at lengd1 in Structurt
and more briefiy when discussing dematcation ctiteria in my earlier
contribution [0 this volume. Here 1 shall be conrent with an abst-ract
descriptive summary. Confine attention first 10 flelds which aim to ex-
plain in dernil sorne rnnge of 1ta1ural phenomena. ( If, as m y critics poim
out, my funber descripon fits theology and bank robbery a.o; well, no
problems are 1hereby creared.) Such a field first gains maturity wheo
provided with lbeory and lechniquc which satisfy the four following
conditions. First is Sir KarPs demarcation cri1erion, without which no
field is pottn1ially a science: for sorne range of narural phenomena, con-
c.rete predlctions must emerge from l e practic.c of the field. Second, fo r
sorne imeresring subdass of phenome1\a, wharever passes for predictive
success must be consisremly achieved. (Ptolemaic astronomy always
predicted planetary position within widcly recogni1..ed limit-S of e.rror.
The companion ast.rological 1radidon could nol, except for rbe tides and
d1e average menstrual cycle, specify in advance which predicrion would
succeed, which fai l.) Third, predictive tec)uliques must havc roors in
a rheory which, however mct-:.phy8ie-al, simult:tncously juscilie-.s them,
explains thcir limi1ed success, and suggesrs means for their improvemem
in both precision and scope. Finally, the improvement of predicrive
r.echnique must be a cbaUenging rASk, demanding on occasions the very
highcst measure of ralent and devotion.
' 7 .. Consob clot\J fot thr.SpWlM; p. 198. Nou:-. that the Feyu
a:bencf quotts in IIOit ) don 001 P)' at :di hJ. he rq>Cim..
1! . 5t"f' T. S. FlmC:l"ion o( in Mocknt bu 11 (196a).
P
1
90
... CltAPTSI\ SJX
11t<S<: conditions >re, of tantamoum to ohe description of a
good scientilic th'"''Y Bw oooe bope for > prescription is
abondoncd, there is no reasoo ro expec:t !<SS. My daim has
bccn- it is my gmuine with Sir Karl about normal
science- that ,..;th such a rheory in h>nd the rime for lttady criticism
nd th.ory pmliftt;tnOI) has Scientists for the time ha vean
alttmativc which is not merely aping wbat has gone They can
intttoad opply their talenl3 to the punln: which le in wh:ac Uk:uos now
eolls the "protective belt." One of their objectives then is to extend the
rnnge nnd precision of existing experiment and theory os well as to
improvc the mmch betwee.n them. Another is tO elinlin:ue conAicts both
berwecn the differem employed in work and between 1he
woys in which single theory is uscd in differem npplications. (Watkins
is riglu, l now think, in charging tha1 my book gives too small a role 10
the<c nter- and intra-tloeoretic puz.zles, bul ukatos's anempt lo reduce
scienct to matltcmatics, lea,ing no signifiant role 10 e:x:perimmt, goes
vastly too far. He eould not, for example, be mistaken about the
irrelevance of Balmer fonnula ro the developmtnt of Bohr's atom
modcl.") Thcse puu.lcs and olhcrs IThelhem consru1c thc main activil}'
o( normal .cic:ntt. 1ough 1 can.nOt :arguc the poi.nt apn, thcy ano not,
pa<t Wadtins, for hacks, nor do they, pau Sir Karl. the prob-
lems of applicd science and engineering. Of course 1he men f:ucina1cd
by them ore a brecd, but so are ph.ilosophers or
E ven givtn 3 theory which pennics norm:Jl scie:nct, however. scien-
riStS necd not engage the puzzles it supplies. They eould in5teod beha,e
as prac1tioncrs of the protosciences musl; they could, that is, seek
potcntial wenk spots, of which there are a1w:ays large and
endeovor ro erect ahernate 1eories around them. Most of my present
crioics believe thC)' should do so. 1 disagree but exclusvely on strntegic
grounds. Feyer.lbcnd mispre<cnos me in a way 1 panicularly rcgrct whcn
he rcpor", for cxample, thot 1 "criricized Bohm for disrurbing lite uni-
formity of the contemporary quanrum thi!Ory. M y record as a trouble-
maker should be hard 10 reeoncile with rhat repon. In fact, 1 eonfcsscd
,,. ....,..,.o.. f:' S .,. .,.... .. rou.crdwou(t-
-.eh ol l..tb.ot't ,..u. For die: acoNI roit o( cbc- &aletr 10 W'Oft. trt
J. L H<Aron * T. S. Xuha.. Gmc:d:. of ct.. SoN Aun. .. sw- M Jw
Sn,.,.l 1 (1"'}: :u..,o.
JO. f c,cuMN. IOr dw Spm.aliM. p. :o6. An mplki1 10 thc
dr'" my miNCies &hm :ttld EiMcri" itb wU M t"ouod
b.&,w
ON' MY CftiTIC$
'"
to Feyerabend that 1 shared Bohm's discomem butthought his exclusive
auenon ro it almost ce:rtain to fa.il. No one, 1 suggesred, wa.s likt.ly to
resol ve the paradoxes of the quanrum theory unril he eould relate them
to sorne concrete tecbnical puu.le of current physics. In the de"eloped
sciences, unlil:c pbilosophy, it is rechnical puulesthat provide the usual
OCC25ion :md oftcn the conettte m.aterials for Their availabil-
iry 1ogether with 1he infonnarion and $ignals 1hey provide accoun1 in
large pan for the speeial narure of scientific progress. BecnW<! they can
ordinorily to.ke theory for granted, exploiting rother titan crit-
icbdng it, rhc prac-ri1ioner$ of marure :;clences ;re frccd 10 t:xplor<: n:uure
lO on esotcric depdo and detail otlerwise unimaginable. Uccause that
exploration will isolate severe trouble spots, t.hey c:m be con-
fident that the pursuit of normal science will infonn chern whi!J\ ami
they can most usefully become Popperian crities. Evcn in the
developcd sciences, !Itere is an essential role for Sir Korl's methO<Iology.
h is thc str:uegy appropriate to 1hose occasions '\\ht.n something goes
wrong with nonnal scie!nce. when the discipline encounters crisis.
1 hl\-. discusscd those points gr<at ltngtlt elsewhere ond shall not
daborate them bere. Let me ins<cad condudc this sectiOft by retwning
to the generalwt.ion with which it began. Despite the energy and spoce
which my aitics cfevo1ed to it, 1 do 001 think the position just
oudincd depans very greatly from Sir Kort's. On ths seo of
our difTer<nces are over nuances. 1 bold that in the dcveloped sciences
occa!lions for criticism need not, :md by most praaitioners ought not,
deliberately tx. sought. When they are found, decem re.t.raint is tht
appropriate responso. Sir Karl, though he ,,,.,. the need to defend
a theory wheJ\ first auacked, gi\es more emphasis rhan 1 10 d1e pur
po'"'ful search for wcak points. There is not n great deal to choose
bcrween us.
Wlty is it, then, thut my preStnt critics see our cmci31 difTerenc.,
One rcason 1 ha ve already suggested: their sense- which 1 do nm
sbart> but whic:h iJ in any caR irrele,ant- th:u m y s1r.ucg1c pretcript.ioo
violates higher A seeond reason, which 1 shall discuss in
lhe next is their apparent inability to see in historial e:x:amples
doe detailcd funcrion of thc of normal science in S<tting
rhe s:rage ror Lakatos's case histories in this
panicularly inttresting, for "" describes dearly '"" transition from ohe
progressive 10 the degenerative phase of a rtoearch program (the transi-
tion from norml science to crisis) and dten appears to deny the critica!
importance of wh:u mults. \Vith a chird reason, however, r mu.st de2l
CUAP'I'ER SIX
at ths poinL. lt enlerges from a c-ridcism \'Oiced by Watkins, which,
howtvcr, in the present comext serves a purpose he by no mean<
intends.
"By contr.l>l ,..;,h thc rclativdy sbarp idea of testobility." Wotkins
"'"'"' "the notion o( (normal science's)'=sing ade.quatcly 10 ouppon
puule-solving trodirion' is t$$C11Dally vague."" With thc charg< o(
vogueness 1 o;rcc, but it is a mist.ikc lO suppose that it difftrenriatcs
my position from Sir Karl's. Wbat is prccisc obout Sir Karl's position
is, 3$ W:nkin:s t1ISO poinl$ out
1
the idea o( testabilily in principie. On
that n.uch 1 rcly 100, for no theory that was not in prinriple tesmble
could function or ooase ro function adequately when applicd 10 seicntific
pu1.zle-solving. 1 do, despite Watkins's strangc failure 10 see it, rokt Sir
Korl's notion of the asymmetry of falsification and conrmntion very
seriously indccd. What is vogue, however, obout my poshion is thc
actual criterio (if tll31 is what is called for) 10 be opplied when dcciding
whcther a particulor failure in punle-solving is or is not 10 be attributed
10 fundomcntaltheory and thus to btcome an oc:casion for detp con m.
n dccision is, howcvtr, idenric:al in kind with thc decision wh<ther
or not thc rcsuh of particular ICSl acrully falsifies a panicular theory,
ami on th .. t subit Sir K3TI is a'l or.ague as l. To dri\e a
'Cdg< berwn us on this issue, Wailins transfcrs thc shorpncss o(
tcsrability-inprincipl< 10 thc shady arca o( tcstobilityinpr.lcti ,..lh
out even hinting how tht rransfer is to be effecttd. h is not an unprcce-
dcnted mistakt, and it rcgul:trly makcs Sir Karl' mcthodology appcor
more a logic, less an ideology, than it is.
Besides, revcning 10 o point made the end of thc la<t se<:tion,
onc m"y lcgitimatdy ask whether what Watkins colls vagucness is o
disadvamage. All scienrists must be taoght-it is n viutl clcmcnt in their
ideology- o be aJen forand re:;ponsible to lheory breakdown, whether
it be dcscribed as severt anomaly or falsification. ln adclhion, they rnust
supplied widl exantples of what their theories a1n, with sufficiem
corc ami skill, be expccted 10 do. Givcn only tbat much, thcy will, of
course. o(ttn rrach difTtrtnt judgmmts in co.ncrttt" Ont man
seoing a cause of crisis where anothcr sccs only evidcnc< of limittd
talent for resurch. But thcy do rcach judgmcnts, and their lock o( una-
nimity ""'Y thcn be whal .. , ... thcir proftssion. Most judgmtnts th:u
a theory has ccastd ade.quatcly ro suppon a mdition
provc 10 hc \\'10ng. lf everyone agrttd in suc.h judgments, no one would
REFLECTIONS ON WY CP.ITICS
be ltft to sbow how exisring theory could accoum for th< apporent
anomaly, as it usually does. If, on the olher hand, no onc wtre ,..lfing
to t.ike the rislt and th<n seek an oltemole lheory, thcr< would be none
o( tht revolurionary tranformarions on whid> scicntific devtlopmcnt
dtpcnds. As Watkins says, "there mUSt hc a critica( ltv<l at which a
tolerablt"'"" into n inrolcrable amount of anomaly" (p. )O). Butthot
lcvtl ouglu not be th< sorne for e,tryone, nor nccd any indhidual spcc-
ify bis own toltranc:e lcvel in advance. He nccd only hc e<!rnin th31 ht
has one and awarc o( sorne sons of discrepancies which would drive
him towatd h.
Normal Scitnrt: /u Rurinol from History
1 have so far argutd that, if therc are revolutions, then there must be
norma) sdenct. Ont may, however, legitimately 3$k whel_hcr t'ither ex
im. Toulmin has done so, and my Poppcrian critics have dilliculcs
in from history a significam normal science upon the existence
of which that of revolutions dcpends. Toulmin's qucstions are of panic-
ular valut, for a rcsponsc 10 thtrn v.ill re.quire me to confront sorne
gcnuinc difficultics presenttd by Srruaure and 10 modify my original
prcsentation oecordingly. Unfonunately, howevcr, thosc dillicuhics ...,
not th< oncs Toulmin S<CS. Before thcy can be isolated, the dust he has
impontd n1u01 be swcpt owoy.
Though tlere have betn imporwn changes in my position during
tl1e sev<n years sincc m y book was publislted, the retreat from u cone<:m
wi1.h macro e o a concentration cm micro-revolutions i.s not among them.
Part of tl1at rctrtat Toulmin finds by contrasting a papcr read in 1961
with a book pu6/ished in 1961.
11
The papcr wa, however, both wriucn
and publishtd after th< book, and its first foomote spccifics the relation-
ship which Toulmin invens. Other e\idence of r<treot Toulmin re
uieves from a eomp:arison of the book v.-ith the manu!k:rip o( m y lll'$1
cssay in this volume.u Bur no one clse has, lO my knowltdgt, even
noticcd the difftrtnces which ht underlincs. and thc book in any cas<
quito cxplicit about tbt ccntraliry of d>C conm whidt Toulmin linds
u. S. E. T.,._ o... d.. Di"""'- !<om! anol Sdmcr H<oW
''arnt e,.,;,;- .J w e,..,. ,... , r.
'l S.. olto S. E. Tool .... -n.. !><>dopm<nl <>( N-.1 S......; A-'-
" npially p. .. ; ..... l. 11le p.lbtiuttOn (1/ t.hi\ biosnfid c:anNd
1n ad'VU!Ot ol dv M'Udto Ofl ... bkb it daims to bbtd t.. si"'"' mt much li"Oublr.

CIIAPTIK SIX
only in my rent work. Among tbe revolutions discussed in the
body of 1he book are, lor <lClmple, d$1-.ries li.ke those of X rays and
of tht pla.ne1 UranU$. Admitttdlyt tht Sl21ts, "tbe e1nension
[of 1he tenn 'r<\Oiuoon' to epimes lil<e 1hes<) Stnins customary usage.
1 shall conunue 10 opeak. even of deo'" .. as revolution-
ary, bcc:ause it $ jU$t tite possibility of rebting tbeir SUUOIUrt 10 Wt
of, say, the Copemican revolution thal makes tl ex1ondtd conceprion
seem to me so import1ln1. "" My con.,.,m, in short. has never been wi1h
scicndfic: rtvolmions as "'something Lh:at tended co happtn in a given
branch of science only once every rwo hundrtd years or so."" Rather
it has been throughout what Toulmin no"' takes it 10 have become: a
littlt-Siudk'<l IYI"' of conceptual chang< which oc.:urs fr<qutntly in sci
ence :md is fundamental co itS advanee.
To 1ha1 conccm Toulmin's geological analogy is entircly appro-
pri.ne, but noc in the way he uses it. He emphasizes the :.sptct of
unifonnitarian.-cawtrophist debate whieh deah with the possibility of
attributing cotastrophes 10 natural causes. and be suggests 1ha1 once
tba1 issue had been resolved 'carasttophes' became oniform a.nd law-
govemed jusi like any otber geologjcal and Waeootological pheoom-
(p . .. J. my ita1ics). Bu e his insertion o( 1he tenn unifonn' is
itous. Besides th< issue of natural causes, the debate hada second central
aspett: the question "'htther catastropbes whetber a major role
in geologic:al .,olution should b< attribiittd to pbcnomona like e>nh-
quakes and volcanic ac1ion "'hich aeted more suddenly and destructively
than crosion and 5<'dimentary deposition. This pan of the debote the
unifonnilarians lost. When it was over, geologistS recognized rwo sons
of geologicol no less distinct because both due 10 natural causes
one acted grndually ond unifnnnly, the othcr suddenly ond c:uamophi
c:tlly. E ven today we do no1 crea1 tidal woves as sp<cial case< of erosion.
Correspondingly, my cbim has been, no1 thot rcvolutiOM were in-
scrumble unit evcnts, bur that in science as in geology there are two
sons of chongt. One of thcm, nonnal science, is the generolly cumula-
tive process by which the ac.:epted b<efs of a scientific community are
lkshed out. oniculattd, and extended. h is what scionrists are tr.ained
10 do, and the main tradition in Engli.sb...speiling philooophy of scionoe
derives from the ex.amination o( tbe exemplary works in which tba1
J+ C/. St.rwnru. pp. 1 {, On p. ' tbt pollliDimy of' tbe woa pciolo co mkro-
il u '"(uMUI'H'tUal 1hnk'" o( thr boot..
lt. Toulr.rul'l, "Dod cM Di'"nctMwt.. p.. ,u.
JU:FLIC:.TION'S ON MY CI\ITIC$

tr.ning is embodied. Unfonunattly, as ind.icaced ln my previous tSS3f,
proponents of 1ha1 philosophical tradition generally choose 1heir eum-
ples from changos of another son which are tben tailorcd 10 fi1. 11te
result is a failure 10 the prevalenco of changes in ""hich con-
<eptual comminnents fundamentalto tht practioe of sorne sciontic spe-
clry muJt b< jettisoned and replaced. Of course, as Toulmin S>)'$, the
two sons o( ch.ange incerpenetra1e: re,olutions are no total in
scionce than in other aspects o( life, bu1 recogniing c:ontinuity through
revolurions ha8 not led hiscorian.s or anyone el se to abandon the nolion.
h v.r:as a wc:tkneH of Strueture that it rould only name, not o._n:alp.e, rhe
phenomenon h repea1edly referred 10 as 'parrial communication'. llut
pard:tl eommunc:u,ion vtas never, as Toulmin would h;wc h, .. complete
(mutual) incomprehcMion" (p. 43). h named a problem 10 b< worked
on., not elcvacd co inscnll'abiliry. Unless we can leam more ubout it (1
shall offer sorne hines in che ncxt section), we shall continue co mi,l;).kt
tbe natur< of scienti6c progress and thus perhaps ofknowledge. Nothing
in Toulmin's essay begins tO porsuade me that wc hall sucoeed if we
c;ontinue 10 aH scienrific change as onc.
The challmge of his paper, how.-er, remains. Can..,.
d.istinguish mre articulotions >nd extensions o( sho:rtd belitf from
c:hanges whicb invol\'e rKOnstruaion.? 1'be answer in extreme c:ues is
obviously y es. Bohr's th<'Ory of tbt hydrogen spccuum wu ,.,olu-
tionary as Sommerfeld's th<'Ory of tbe hydrogen line strocturt W11s not;
Copemican astronomical th<'Ory was revolutionary bu1 the caloric lhe-
ory of adi:tbatic compression was not. TI1ese examples are, howtvtr,
100 extreme 10 b< fitlly informa1ive: ther< are 100 many differences b<
twccn tlte theories and the revolutionary changes afTected
too mnny pcop1c:. F'ortun:uely, however
1
we are not rcstricccd 10 chem:
Ampere's 1heory of che electric c-ircuit \\"::S revolurionary (::u lcast among
French electrid3ns), be-cause it severed elect:ric-currem and elt.-ctrost:.tic:
effeetS wbich had previously b<en concoptually unittd. Ohm's law was
again nwolutioruary, and was resi:ned according.Jy, hcau!loe it dem:a.uded
a reinl<vation of concepiS previously applied separ.uely 10 curren! and
charge. On the other hand, 1hc ]oule-Lenz law relating th hea1 gener-
:ued in a wire to the resistance and cutttnt was a product of nonn:tl
science, for bo1h the qulitative efftctS and the conceptS for
,4. 0. tbtw wc T. N. Brown_ n.r Ekuric Curmwt in r....ty
fmocb Phywtl. HUttwitw/ ,., PJty1itaf r (9'69): 6- 0); U. L
to Ohm't Lawt A"'- j..,..,J . P.A)Uo l' ( tpfd 1)6--17.
CHAPTER SrX
quanlificotion we"' in hand. Ag3io. at a l"'el whicb is not 50 obvi
ously theomic:al, LJ,oisu's ctiscm-ery of oxygen (though P"rhops not
Sch..,lo's and 'u rol) not Prieodey's) w;u """'""0031'), for it was insop-
arable from new theory of c:ombusrion and aculity. Thc diSCIOvcry of
noon, howcver, was not, for hdium bod suppli<d botb tbc notion of an
incn g:as and thc nccdcd column of th< !"'riodtc tablt.
On may quesrion, howover, how f.ar and how univorsolly this prc>-
=s of discriminlion cm be presscd. 1 am fCP"tcdly askcd whether
suclt .. .-nd .. such a '9.'01.S inomt;J or revolutionary," and 1
usually ha ve 10 answcr that 1 do not know. Nothing deP"nds upon my,
or anyone clse's. being able tO respond in cvery conc:eivable c:ls.e. bu1
much dcp<?nds on thc discrimination's bcing applicabl to a far larger
numbcr <>f "'""' hove b<oen supplied 50 far. Port of thc difficulty
in an.swering i.s that rhe dis.crimination of normal from revolutionary
episodes dcmands closc historical study, and few pon:s of the history
of sc:ience have rtQe:ived it. One mUSt know no1 simply che mame of
,., ch>nge, but the norure and structu"' of group rommitments before
ond after it occumd. Often, to determine""""' one mu" tlso know the
manncr in whicb the change was ..,.eived wben finl proposed. (Tbm is
no ..,. in which 1 a.m more d<q>ly conscious of the necd ror odditiontl
hi><orical though 1 disscnt from th< conclusions Perce Wil
liams drows from that necd and doubt that the r<Sults of investigorion
will Sir Korl ond me closcr.) My difficulty, however, hlS a d"'!"'r
>sp<?ct. Titough mucb depends upon more resc>rch, the invesrigarions
requirtd are nor simply of t.he sort indicared above. Funhermore, the
strucwrc of 1he argument in Struaurt somewhat Lhe narure of
wlm is miuing. lf 1 were re<vriting the book now 1 would signficantly
dt;_mge l$ orgonization.
Tite gist of 1he problem is that to answcr tltc qucstion "normal or
revoluton:uy?" onc must firsr ask, .. for whom? .. Somedmes thr answer
is Copernkan asaronomy was a tt"volution for cveryont; oxygen
was a rc:volucion for chemistS but not fortsay, mathemacial astronomers
unless, like Lapl:>, they wef<' inrerestcd in chemical and thermol sub-
jeas 100. For thc laner group oxygen was simply another gos, ond its
diJCOvery "-as mercly an to theit knowledge; nothing essen-
al to thcm s .,.ronomtrs had to be changcd in the discovery's assimi
t.tion. h , not, ho .. evu, usu;illy possibleto identi(y groups which share
cognilive commi1mencs simply by naming a scienrific subject maner-
astronomy. chemisrry, mathe.rnaric::s, or the like. That is, however, whac
1 hove ju<t done here and did earli.er in my book. Sorne scientific sub-
JH:.,LICTIONS ON MY CRJTJCS
j..:tS-for <nmple, the study of heat- have bclongcd to differem sci
t>ntifac communitiH :u diffennt rime5, somerimn to Mvtrnl 11 onc:e,
without bcroming the special provine< of any. In additioo, though scien
tisiS are muc.h more ne:uly unanimous 1n their commilmt>nts than pnc-
titiontrs of, say, philosophy ond the ans. thA,re "' .ucb tbint;< os sdiOOI<
in science, rommunitits whieh approach the same subjt from vcry
difl"t>ren1 point.s o( vin.
1
Fttnch r-lectricians in tltt> firs.t d.ades of Ute
nineteenth cenrury ., .., membcrs of a school which indudcd olmost
none of the Btish dectcians of the day, and so on. lf 1 were writing
m y book now, 1 would thereforc bcgin by discussing the commu-
nity strucwre of sciencc, and 1 would not rely exclusively on sharcd
su.bjcct nmuer in doirtg so. Communiry scruccurc n topic about whic:h
wc h:we very linle inform;:ation at prescnt, but i1 htts reccmly bccome
a major concem for sociologists, and histOria.ns are now inc:reasingly
concemcd widt it as weiJ.!'?
The problems invoh-ed ...., by no meatU trivial. Historians
of science who eng-g in them muSt 10 rcly cxclusively on the
u:chniquc:s o( the intelleawl historian and use rhose of 1he soci.al .tnd
cu.lru.ral histori>n as well. Even thouglt work has scorcely begun, the"'
is every reason ro it to ponicubrly for 1M developod
sciencu, rhosc which h.:t\'C severed their his1oria.l fOOl$ in 1he philo-
sophicol or medico! communities. What one "'-ould then hove "ou.ld be
a rostt':r o( 1he specialisC$' groups throug:h whic.h sclence w.ts
advaneed :n various periods of rime. The oanalyric uni1 wQuld be the
proctitoners of given specialty, men bound togcthcr by common de-
meni.S in rheir educa1ion 3nd aware o( cach mher's work,
ami choracu:ri;(ed by the rclative full ness of their profc5sional communi ..
c:uion and the rclativc unanimy of their professiOI'\011 judgmcm. In 1he
m:mare sciencts rhe members of such communilies would orclinarily
tl1etnselves and be scen by others as tlte men exdusively responsible
for a givcn subject manee anda given set of goals, induding rht training
of thcir Reu-areh would. ltowc:ver, tllct exi"ence o(
ri,-. schools as well. Typicol rommuniries, lcost on the contemporory
sc.'ientific scr-nt'-, may consisr of a hundred members) .sometimn signi6
contly (e.,tr. Jndividuols, panicubrly the oblest, may bclong lO
eral such groups. <ithA,r simult:meously or in suCCCS$On, and .,;u
%.A .._.u IIIIOI'C" &u.W of W. d tOIN' prdumnar)
""......, ..,. ., n. s-.s.. .. ,
C'd. F (UrbaN: U..rvtnicy oi 111ioot. Ptft:l. r.> Pf' ,. \9 ll; n-printc!CI MI
n, Euumill Tl!IMIM, pp. :t.9-p,.

CHAPT&R SIX
chango or 01 leas< djust tbeir thinking cap; as 1hey go from one 10
another.
Croups liko 1h...o should. 1 suggest, be rtgardrd u 1he units which
produce ;c<nrific knnwlrdge. They coulcl nOt, o( coun<>, function ,..,,.
out individuab .. mcmbers. but the vuy idea o! scienufic knowlrdge
3S a prh.atc pruclue1 prestnts the 5ilJDe iotrinsic prob!enu as tllc notion
o( a private langua(e. p>rnlld ro whicb 1 shaU rctum. Neither knowl-
rdge nor rem.aios the S3me wben concevrd as something an
individuo! can nd develop .tone. !t is, therefore, wth rcspec1
tO groups like tha1 the quesrion "normal or should
be asked. Mony episodes will dtcn be revolutionary for no comrnunites,
many o1hers for only " single small group, still o1hers for severa! com
10gc1hcr, a few for all of science. PoS! in chal way, the ques-
rion will, 1 belicve, have answers as precise my distinccion requires.
One reason for thinking so 1 shall illusttate in a momen1 by applying
tl1is approach 10 sorne of the concrete cases usrd by m y critics 10 rasc
doubtS about tle existcnce and role of normal science. First, however,
1 must poin1 Out one :aspect o( my present position which, far more
dearly than normal sacnce, ncpresents deep divide benleen m y view-
poim and Sir K:u1's.
The program just oudinrd makes evcn dearcr rhan it has been before
the sociologic>l hose of m y position. More imporrant, ir highlighcs wha1
has perhops no1 been dtor before, the e."en' 10 which 1 rtgord sctmic
knowlcdge .. intrinsic.Uy a product of. congeries or specialm' eom-
munitits. Sir K:ul sct.-s a danger in ... and the
conrcx1 in wltklt he provides 1his evaluarion suggesrs tha1 tlre danger
$ che same one he sces in normal science.!S Buc with respect w che
fonner, :u least, che banle has clearly been Jost from the start. Not chat
one miglu not wish for gnod reosons to oppose speciali>-'llion and even
succeed in doing so, bu1 tlt>l lhe effon would necessarily be to oppose
science as well. Wltenever Sir Karl rontrasts science wi1h philosophy,
os he de> >t the sto.n of his p>per, or physics w1h sociology, psychol-
ogy, and history, as he does at the end, he is conmuting an esot:eric,
iso131rd. and largely sdf-comained discipline with one that still aims
to communiace wid1 and pe-rSUade an audience larger th1n thrir own
profossion. (Science is 1101 the only octivity the praaitioners of .. hich
ean be grouprd imo communites, but it is the only ont in whkh each
REPLI!.CTIONS OS ).IY CIUTI C$
...
community is its own txclus:ive audien- a.nd judge..'') The conuut is
not 11 new one, chanc:teristic, say. ofBig Science and the QOntt:mporuy
Sne. Mathematics and astronomy were esoterie subjects in antiquity;
mechanics became so after Colileo and Newton; elec:tticity af1er Cou-
lomb and Posson; and so on until economics today. For 1he nvost pon
1hat transition to a dosed 5pecialisos' group was pan o( 1he tr>nsition
10 marurity that 1 discussrd above when considtring the emergencc of
puule-solving. lt is hord 10 believe that it is a dispct>sable chnr>ct<ristic.
Perhaps science could ogain becomelike philosophy, liS Sir Karl wishcs,
but 1 suspect thot be would then admire i1 less.
To conclude ths pan of my dscussion, 1 tum ro some concrete cases
by means o( which m y criLics illustrate their diffiouhic-s in finding
science ond its functions in hisrory, t.aklng up a problem r:tised by
Sir Karl and Watldns. 8oth point ou1 that nolhing like a ronscnsus over
(undamentals .. emerged du_ring the long bistory or fhe eheory o( matttr:
herc from the pre-Socratics to the presenr day rhere has been an unend-
ing Jt-bate berween continuous and discontinuous concepts of mauer,
berween various aromk theories on che one hand, and ethtr, w;ave and
ficld theories on the other. Feyerobend makes a very similar point for
the second of rhe nineteenth cenrury by con1rasting rhe mechanic:al,
phenomenologial. and dd-theorerie approaches <O problems of pbys-
ics. Wi1h all of their descriptons of what went on 1 agree. But tbe
term 'cheories of mauer' does noc, a:t least until che l:ast thirty ye.;ars,
even differenriale the coneerns of Kienee from those of philosophy,
mueh less single out eommuniry or smoll gmup of communites re-
sponsible for ancl expen n thc subject.
1 :lm no1 sugge:sting chat sdcntists do not have u.c theorit.os of
mauer, nor that tlleir work is urtaffected by such theodes, nor that cheir
rcsearch results have no role in the theories of mouer held by mhers.
Bur untl this century tl1eories of mancr have been 3 tool for scientists
r>drer thn a subject maner. Tbat cfferen1 speciahics have ehoscn dif-
ferent coolt :and sometirnes criticiud each o1flel"$' d10ic:es does nor mNn
that 1hey ha ve no1 each been practicing nonnal science. The frcquenrly
,_S.. r c........ ... doe ofSricno< ..,.
JO- wm-. Ap PP.,.. ft.,. s---
11
.. & Warl:aft1; 11101n., o...ar,.
, ...,. ....W ...... "'""...,.,... ol S...O... Rnw.. 1l l ... t 1l1-.o).,.
,._ wid! ft rok o( ......,_ in chemisuy in dw lirw lulf ol dw fiiiM'Ift'ft CC'MIN'Y 1
&al 1rith dwt c-. t.Jow.
l' F.,.,...,, oht Spbb;,..- p. -,.
.,. CIIAPTER SIX
heard thac, before the advent of wave mtchanics., physi
cim and chemim deployed characreristic and irr<'d>ncilable thoories of
moucr is 10<1 simplisric (panly because it can equ.Uy well be sald obout
differem chemical speciahies e,en today). But the very possibility of
such a generaliunion suggesrs the way in whicb the issue raised by
Watkins and Sir Karl musr be approacbed. For that mottcr, the prac-
ririone.s of a given communiry or scbool need not always shore a thoory
of mancr. ChemiStry during tbe first b.U of tbc ninct'nth ccntury is
a case in point. n10ugh many of irs fundamental rools- eonstant
pon-iont muhiple proportion, eombining weiglus, and so on- had bcen
dcveloped ;ond beeome common propcrty t1lrough atomic the-
ory, thc mcn who used them could, after the event, odopt widely vory-
lng :uti10dcs about the narurc and even tl1c ex:istcnec: of urom.s. Titeir
discipline, or at many parts of it, did not dcpcnd upon a shared
model for m;nter.
Even where they admit thc existence of nonnal sdenco, my critics
regularly have difficuhy di..overing crisis and its role. Watkins pro-
vides an example, and its resoluon foUo"''S at once from son of
analysi deployed above. Keplu"s laws, Watll.ins rennds us, wer< in-
comp>tiblt with twton's pl-rary theory. but utronomen bad not
previously been diss;risfied with them. Newton's re,oluonory treat-
mtnt o( planttary motions was not, Wot.kins therefore usens, preceded
by astronomical crisis. But why should it have been? In the first place,
the tnnsilion from Keplerian to NeWionian orbits nc< not have bem
(ll:1.ck 1he cvidence 10 be cenain) a revolution for astronomers. Most of
them followed Kcpler and explained the shape of the plonetary orbits
in meclmnical rather than geometricaltenns. (Their explonotion did not,
that is, makc use of the elllpse's 'geometric perfection', if nny, or of
som'-' othcr ch:antcttristic of which the orbit was cJcprived by Newmniatt
perturb>Lions.) 11tough tlte transion from circle to elllpse had becn
pan of n rtvohuion for them
1
a minor adjustment of mcchani.sm would
accoum, as it did with Newton, for depanure from elllpticity. More
imponant, NewtOn's odjustment of Keplerian orbits was a by-produa of
his work in mechanic:s, a field to whicb tbt communiry of mothematical
astronomerS made passing referenoe in tbeir prefaces but wbich tlttref-
ter played ooly tbt most global role in thcir work. In mechanics, ltow-
ever. where Nev.1on did induce a revolucion, thecc had been ...;dely
rtrogniud critis sin the aoceptance of Copemic:anism. W:ukin.s's
counttrcxample is tite beS< son of grist for my mili.
l tum finally to one of Laka10s's extended case hiStories, dUJt of the
R.itPLECTIONS ON MV CR.ITICS
. ,.
Bohr rese>rch program, for it illustratcs wh>t moSt pu:ai<S me about
his often admirable paper and suggests bow deep evtn residuo! Popper-
ianism can be. 1ough his rerminology is dill'erem, his onalytic opparo-
tus is as close 10 mine as need be: hard rore, work in the protecrive
belt, and degentrative phase are cl<>S<! parallels for my paradignu, nor-
mal science:, crisis. Y e:1 in impol"'tlnt ways l..akatos (-ails tO see ho'V.'
these shared notions funerion even "'hen appi)'ng them 10 "'hat is for
me an ideal case. let me illustrate sorne of tl1e he eould have
seen and might hove said. My version, like his or like ony other bit of
historical will bt! a r.uional reconstruction. But 1 sh:111 no1 ask
my readcrs 10 upply rons of sah' nor add foomotes poinling out 1l 1a t
wh:u is s.aid in my cext is falsc.u
Considcr Lakatos's occounr of the origin of the Bohr otom. "The
background problem," he writcs, "was the riddle of how l\utl1erford
atoms ... can for, aocording to the wcll-corrobor.ued
Maxwell-Lortntz theory of electtomagnetism tl1cy sltould collopse. "
11
Thot is a genuino Popperian problem (not a Kuhnian pu:ule) orising
from the conAicr berween rv.o increasingly well establl<lted pans of
physics. h bad, in addirion, been available for sorne time as a potenrial
f<IW point for eririei$m. h did nor originare with Rutherford's modl'l
in 1911; radiad insrability was equ.Uy a dilliculry for most older atom
models, induding both Thomson's and Nagaoka's. Furthermorc, it is
the problem which Bohr (in sorne sense) sohed in his fmous rhree-
pan pape.r of 191}, thereby inauguraring a re,olution. No "''onder La.
katos would like it 10 be tite "background probletn" for the ,....arch
program thot produced the revolution, but it cmphorically is not."
t1u: bnckground wu an entirdy nonnal puu lc. Bohr M:t our
to improve the physical approximations in paper by C. G. Darwin
p .. Labtot. '"flhif.ealioft.." pp. tJI, 140 . ... 6. atld ebc'Whe1t>. OM my fC'IIJOnlhJ)' at.k abo.11
tbc tvidcntUI (oru o( a:&mpkot all IOr thi., j(jft o( qu;..!iliatlon (tl'ld ;, quhe
dw ri&IU wmdJ). IIJ. in ll.Mihd CONteXt be vny IV.-uo(ul for 1hut
o( L.uoe' More dnrly. bcat.uc mo o:plkidy. &han 111y othcuu.mpln t tftOW, t:.lky lttlls-
cnt< dx d'""-"' """"" dx "'1 phlloocph<n .,._. bmonaM ...wlydo "'->' Tlw ,..U...
U. noc eN. 1\\ely eo nuh lni)w, tbt Cb bacrr ttwi!Nfty
..,._ who ...... - .. - ..,..u...., ..,._do ..... '1I"'P- ....... a...
...,.W '* ittt-W ir .U. -mw a C..CU rqKIIn ..-.. ht W... MI M lw. 1( M Ncl
6cww too M ..W be t0 WMiaw- to offarte that ht couW aot .. ..wy lootaot.t
.. .....
-._ 1 h:noc dDallllrd 110aw ol daD.1iiOrt ia ""1'&c- IINtlr)' ..nd
..,........,. oiSdmc.; , 11< EunuiJ T..,;,.. W , _.._
JJ Ukm.. fat.iMMft. .. p. , ,.,,
H For wbat (....._ lf'r *'MI :Kuhn. ""1'bt o( tM Bobr At(Mft. ..
op CUAP1'BR SIX
on rhe energy lost by parricles >3S'ing rhrough mart<r. In the
pro<:ess he made har "'35 to him rhe surprising discovery that rhe
Rutherford atom. unlilte otber current models, was mechanically UJ\Sta-
ble and that a Planck-like ad boc dC>'a! for it provided a
promising cxpl.mauon of lhe periodicities in table. some-
rhing else for wbich he had nor boen looking. Ar thor poinr bis model
5till had no excited m res. oor was Bohr yet concomed 10 apply it 10
aromic spectra. 11woe steps followed. however, as he auempred 10 rec-
oncile bis modcl with tite apparendy incompatible one developed by
J. W. Nicholson and, in the process, encounrered Balmer's formula.
Likc mucb or rhc r<-.e:trch that produces revolutions, Oohr's biggest
achievemcnt.:J in '9'3 wcre products., therefore, of :a resea_rch progroam
directed 10 gools very differenr from rhose obtained. Though he could
nor bave stabilizcd the Rud1erford modeJ by quantization if unaware
o( tl1e crisis whicb Planck's work had inrroduced ro physies, bis own
work illunnues ,.,;,b particular clarity the revolutionary efficacy of nor-
mal researeh puu.les.
&.>mine, 6nally, tite concluding porrion of Lahtos's case history,
the dtgtnerative phase of the old quantwn tbeory. Most of tbe $10<y
he e)l.J 2nd 1 slall simply poim it up. From '900 on h waJ inc:u.u--
ingly widely recogniud among physicisrs thot quancum had
introduced a fundamental inconsisteney inro physics. Ar nt mony o(
them tricd 10 elimina te it, but, after 191 t and p3rticularly after the inven-
tion of Bohr's omm, thost cricic.al dfons were increasingly aba_ndoned.
Einstein was, for more than a decade, the only physici! t o( note who
contillucd to dircct energies toward r.he search for a consistem phys-
ies. Otbers leamcd 10 live inconsisteney and tried instead 10 solve
technical puzdes with the tools at hand. Particularly in the arcas o(
atomic spectr:t, :uomic structure, and specific heats, their nchievcments
were unprce<demed. l11ough 1he inconsisteney of physical thcory was
widely acknowledged, physicisrs could nevertheless exploit it and by
doing so made fundamental discoveries atan extraordinary rote betwecn
1913 and 1911. Quite suddenly, howcver, beginning in 1911, tbese very
1\'tre se<n lO have oobted tbree obdurate prob)ems- the be-
Jium modtl, tht anomalous dl'ect, and oprieal dispenion-
which could not. physicislS were increasingly convinced, bo resolved
by anything quite like existing rechnique. As a resuh, many of them
changed their researcl1 Slance, proliferaring more and wilder versions of
rhe old quontum thcory tha.n bofore, designing and testing each auempt
ag-inst the tluee recognized ttOuble spots.
RBPLilCTJONS ON NY CRJTICS
'11
h is this last phase, 1911 and aft<r. which Lakatcn call 1hc degcncro-
rive srage of Bohr's program. Forme it is casebook example of crisis,
dearly documented in publications, correspondence, ond anecdote. We
""' it in \'try nearly tbe same way. Labtos might tberefore havt told
tht rest of the story. To those who 1\'ere experiencing this crisis, rwo
o( the three problems wbich had provoked it proved immensely infor-
dispersion and the anomalou.s Zeeman effecc. By ;a series o(
connecttd too complex co be outlined here, their pursuit led
10 the adoption in Copenhagen of an atom model in whiclt .o-colled
vinual o:K:illamrs couplcd discrete quamum states-. rhen ro a formula IOr
quanrumtheorec:al disJ>ersion, and finall y m rmnrix mcdmnic:s whiclt
terminrued thc bardy r-hr(!(: years after it had begun. For llmt first
formulmion oi qunntum mechanics, d1e degenerative phasc oi tht old
quamum theory provided both occasion and muclt del3iled tt-chnical
subst3n. liiSiory of 5cicncc, to my knowlcdge, offc.rs no t..-<ually dlar,
detailed, :tnd <X>gem example of the creari\'e functions o( normal
and crisis.
Lak.atos, howeve:r, ignor6 thls chaprer and jump;, ins1cad 10 wve
mechanies, tht second and at nt quite different formulotion o( a new
quancum theory. l'int, 1.., describes the degenerativo phose o( the old
qwnrum theory u filled with t"\er more' incon.sistencies :md
ever more oJ 4<>< bypotheses" ("oJ 4oe" and "inoonsistencies" are riglu;
"sterile" could not be more wrong; not only did the:se hypoth..., lead
10 matrix mecbanic:s bm also 10 electron spin). Then, he produces 1he
crisisresolving innov:uion like a magjcian pulling a ,...bbh from a h:u:
rival rese:uch programme $00n appeart.od: wave rncch:mics ...
[which] soon caught up with, vanquishcd and rcpl<>cc..t llohr's pro-
gnamme. De Broglic's paper came at a time when Bohr's pi'(Jgrlmme
degenenuing. But ,,u was me.re C()Midenec. One wondtl'$ wh:u
would bave happcned if de Broglie had publisb,-d his poper in 1914
instead of
To the dosing rhctorica.l question, answrr it cle;at: nothing at
all. 8oth de Broglie's popcr and the route from it to the Schriidinger
wave equation dcpend in detail on developments which oa:unrtd after
1914: on work by Einstein and by SchrOdinger bimsdf as well as on
di.SC:O'\cry o( Compton dTect in E ven if th:ac poim eould
n t..a,t.,... '"f'abilotiOl'l.. P s...: iufics adckd.
'' SM M. J. Klm. atld dw \l'aw-Parddt Dluht)','"' 1M (964l:
. ..._.,;V. V, and P. Form.&tl!. *\\'hy Was lt Sc&rding. Who ()rcl.f'lopcd de:
ldn:J St..u M dt PJ.p;.../ SN:u e (t96?) : , ,..,.
CIIAPTER SIX
noo be documcnocd in dco;l. ho .. is not coancodcnce sornincd be-
yond ....:ognioion .,.,.,., lL..d 10 exphin tJ,., simul12noou emergence of
two independcno and ao nt quite dilfm:no theoric.. both of
r<SOiving a crisis oh>< had been visible for only three years!
Le< me be ...:rupulous. Thougl Lakatos cnoirely missa tite esstntial
creaoive functions o( ol1c crisis of tite old qu.mrum theory, he is noo
a.hogether wrong abuuo it.'$ rde\'allOC w thc invcnoion of wave mtchan-
ies. Tilc w:.ve equation \\'"3! nor a response to the crisis which began
in 1911, bUI 10 the one which dates f!'()m PJanck's work in 1900 :md
on which mos1 phyicistS hild tumcd their backs after '9" lf Eins1ein
hod no1 tcnaciously refused to set aside his deep dissatisfoction with the
fundamental inoonsistcncies of thc old quantum theory (and if he had
not Jx.-en ro auach lhnt discomem ro the concrete technical puv.les
of ek-ctromogneoic flucouacion phenomeno- something for which he
found no equivulent after 9l), d.e wave equation would not have
emerged when ond os it did .. The research rouoe whieh leads to it is
not the same as the route 10 mat:rix mKhaniC$.
Buo neither are the rwo independent. nor is tbe simultaneity of their
termiruuion due merely to colncidcnoc. Among the .ever.al research epi-
which 1ie 1hem together is, for eumple. Compcon's convincing
demonstr.nion in 19 11 of the particulote propenies of light. the by-
produC'l of a vcry high-class piece of normal research on X-r.ay scaner-
ing. lkfore physicistS could consider the idea of maner waves, dtey had
firso 10 take the idea of olte pbooon seriously, and this few of ohcm had
done bcforc 1911. De Uroglie's work started as phocon tl1cory, its main
1hrus1 bcing 10 re<:oncile Plonck's rodiation law with thc par1iculate
structure of' liglnt m;ncer waves entered along t.he way. De Broglie him ..
sclf m:1y no1 hnve needed Compton's di.scovery in ordcr co 1o.kc the
phooon S<:riously, but his oudienee, Freneh and foreign, eet1ainly did.
TI1ough wavc mcchanics in no sense follows from the Compton effec1,
therc are ces beJWn the cwo. On the road to matrix mechan
ics the role of the Comp1on effeet is even dearer. The first of ohe
,.nual oscillator model in Copenhagen wos to show how th:u elrect
could be explaincd witout recourse to Einstein's photon, a concept tbat
Bohr had been notoriously rducrant to accepo. 1e same model was
next applied 10 dispersion ond the clues 10 mat:riJC mtchanico found. The
Compton dTect iJ therefore one bridge a.cross the g;ap which Labros
hide-s "'roincidence."
Having providcd elsewhere many other examples of the significant
roles of normal scienee and crisis, 1 sl1aU not multiply u1cm furtlter he re.
II.EFLECTION$ OS MY CRI'fH:S
For bck of additional researeh 1 could noo, in ony c;sc, provide enough.
When complcocd, thot researeh necd not beor me out, but wl13t has
been done so f>r surely fails oo suppon my crirics. They must look
funher for
1 considcr now onc lost set of eoneems voiccd by my pr<...:no critics,
in t.his C3.SC one chey share with a numher of ocher phHosophers. h
ariscs m3inly from m y descripdon of the procedures by which sciencisr.s
choosc becwcen compcting theorles, and it resuhs in charges which dus
ter abom su('h ttrms as 'irr::nionality', 'mob rule', and 'rclacivism'. In
this secrion 1 aim to climinate misu.ndersumdings fot which my own
past rhetoc is doubtless partially resxmsible.ln m y concluding section,
which follows, 1 shall oouch upon sorne d<-eper issucs r>ised by the
problem of theory dooioe. Ao ohot point the terms 'pradigm' ond 'in-
which 1 h:l\'e so far almost c-ncin:ly :wotdedt wiU
neSS>rily reenter the discussion.
In StTWJurt, science is at one point d<$Cribed as "a Sttenuous
and devotcd >ttempt to foroc noture into the coneepouol boxcs supplicd
by professionol eduation" (p. l) !.>ter, discussing thc problems which
surround the choice bet"'ecn compering sets ofhoxcs, thoories, or p.1ra-
digms, 1 described 1hem os:
ahou1 lt't'hni<(UCS o( pcrsua'lion, or abou1 arg\lmcm and coun1cr :1rgumem
in a situ:ttion in hich ... neilhcr proo( nor error is at issuc. The trnnsfcr
o( alh.-giance from p3radigm to pandigm is a conversion cxperitnee th:u
c.:annot be (on:t<l. Lifclong rcsistance .. . is not :a viohuiun of
st:1.1ldards bu1 an index tOche n;nure of sciemific rese-arcll itscl( . ... Though
thC' hi!ltOti.tn Q i\ al .. ll)'$ find (or instancc:- who weru un ..
to rffi.st long as they did, he will not fin<l a poinll.U which
becomn dlos;k:d or unscieutific:. At tnosc he may wbh 1.0 Q)'
lhat 1he man who continues to rt:S.ist ;afttr his wbole pro(mion hu bn
com;C'ntd has iuo .focto cea:sed to be a $Cientist. (p. t S t)
Nllt surprisingly (though 1 hove myself been '"'Y much surprised),
passoges lile oh<se are in some quaners read as implying thao, in the
devdopcd sciences, miglu makes right. Members of a scicntific oommu-
nity ean, 1 am held to have claimed, believe anytlting they please if
only they will tirso decide whao oltey agro abou1 and olten enforce ir