Buddy R. McNeal Jr.
4 February 2013
Percival, W. K. (1976). The Applicability of Kuhn's Paradigms to the History of Linguistics. Language, 52(2), 285-294. Retrieved from http://people.ku.edu/~percival/Kuhn'sParadigms.pdf
This is a credible journal written by Keith Percival from the university of Kansas applying Kuhn paradigm concept to the history of Linguistics. Percival displays two questions in this article: "Has Kuhn's Paradigm concept been correctly applied?" and "is the theory applicable to Linguistics?". He first explains Kuhn's concepts of the paradigm for readers not familiar with his work and then discusses the history of linguistics. He uses Chomsky's work in comparison to Bloomfieldian framework as an example. Finally he illustrates certain feuds within the linguistic community on theory and how Kuhn's theory cannot apply to this social science.
I was intrigued by this article. Percival laid out the facts, and drew a clear line to discredit Kuhn's theory of paradigm in linguistics. I do not think however his thoughts on Kuhn's theory not working entirely will gain much support outside of linguistics. Kuhn's theory was never created as a universal solution but merely framework to build upon. Percival makes a great argument but it is clear it just one instance of the many that Kuhn's paradigm concept isn't ideal.
I recommend that the writer expand with more examples outside of linguistics if he hopes to disprove Kuhn's concepts. The author has presented a strong argument within his field, but without more examples outside of linguistics it is limited.
Naughton, J. (2012). Thomas Kuhn: the man who changed the way the world looked at science. The Observer. Retrieved on January 25, 2013 from http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/2012/aug/19/thomas-kuhn-structure-scientific-revolutions
This reference consists of an online article posted by Mr. Naughton that sheds light to just how much of an impact Kuhn's Book was. This article starts out with creating credibility to this by stating sales and Google hits that Kuhn's book and the paradigm shift expression has gained over the years; this post also goes back before the book and tells a lot about Kuhn to get background information on the author. With his background in physics rather than philosophy the author shows how Kuhn shook the ground on the current notion of scientific discovery. Toward the end of the article the author leaves the reader with a few questions to ponder about how Kuhn's theory will hold up to the new fields of science developed since his book.
I enjoyed this article. It gets your attention with Google and Amazon stats at the beginning and by stating that many use Kuhn's paradigm shift expression but do not know where it originated from and use it incorrectly. It is a more current article than most I found and it was easy to read. Naughton does pose a few questions at the end of the article that are interesting. He states that in Kuhn's book origination period, physics was the top science of that time and now biotechnology and molecular genetics have taken over the top spot. Naughton shifts the reader's attention to the paradigm concept future and will it be relevant to these new, exciting fields.
I have very little to recommend for this article. It was balanced, credible, and had a lot of great information that you need to know but also bonus background information that is interesting and keeps you intrigued. With this bonus background information, Naughton could have given more information about Kuhn before the book, but I can see why he did not. Had he done this, the article may have lost balance and become more about Kuhn than the Paradigm concept. This was a great article.
Kuhn, T. (n.d.) Second thoughts on Paradigms. Retrieved on February 2, 2013 from http://eu.pravo.hr/_download/repository/Second_Thoughts_on_Paradigms.pdf.
This reference is written by the author of the...