I'll be honest, I cheated. I could have gone to the source and read the man's own words, but sometimes it's just easier to read the Cliff notes (or equivalent). In this case:

http://www.des.emory.edu/mfp/kuhnsyn.html

Robert

On 7/25/06, Owen Densmore <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Which if Kuhn's books would be good to read?  There are apparently
several!

     -- Owen

Owen Densmore
http://backspaces.net - http://redfish.com - http://friam.org


On Jul 24, 2006, at 8:55 AM, Robert Holmes wrote:

> You beat me to it Mike. I was re-reading Kuhn this morning because I'm
> pretty darn sure that complexity science is failing to establish
> itself as a
> paradigm, and I wanted support for this contention from someone a
> whole load
> cleverer than me. I'll report back on my readings...
>
> Just as a starter, Kuhn suggests that a field's history is largely
> represented in the new textbooks that accompany the paradigm shift.
> I'm
> thinking that if we don't have the textbooks (see Owen's thread),
> it's hard
> for us to even claim that a new paradigm exists ("there's no there
> there").
>
> Robert
>
> On 7/24/06, Michael Agar <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>
>> Well, there's the roads, yeah, and then there's the...
>>
>> Romans are the right metaphor, since much of what's happened in the
>> last X years has been diffusion of ideas--ideas, not measures--into
>> numerous different domains. Like Kuhn said...
>>
>> Mike
>>
>>
>> On Jul 24, 2006, at 7:21 AM, Robert Holmes wrote:
>>
>> > Hi all,
>> >
>> > I really enjoyed Joe's post and it set me thinking - exactly what
>> > has complexity science achieved? IMHO, one measure of a field's
>> > health is that the field moves forward (radical, huh?). If I look
>> > at particle physics, they now know stuff that they didn't 15 years
>> > ago (neutrino mass for example); if I look at high-temperature
>> > superconductivity, Tc moves ever upwards. If I look at string
>> > theory they ask (and occassionally answer) ever more abstruse and
>> > unlikely questions that might not bear any relation to the real
>> > world but are at least based on what was asked before.
>> >
>> > So here's the question: in the field of complexity science, exactly
>> > what can we do now that we could not do 15 years ago?
>> >
>> > Robert
>> > ============================================================
>> > FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
>> > Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
>> > lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org
>>
>>
>> ============================================================
>> FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
>> Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
>> lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org
>>
> ============================================================
> FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
> Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
> lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org


============================================================
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org

Reply via email to