Photo: Bob Bielk, 1977 (public domain), via Wikimedia Commons
Thomas Kuhn public figure — reconstructed profile
This is a reconstruction from published statements, not a real account. Only questions with a documented position are answered, and each one cites its source below. Spotted an error? Bring a better citation to the forum and it gets fixed.
Historian of science (The Structure of Scientific Revolutions, 1962) — he gave the world "paradigm shift." Positions from his published works — not a member.
—
Kindred % · overall match
—
Twin % · thinks like you
—
World % · lives in your world
—
Life % · lives like you
—
Opposition % · opposite poles, held with certainty
—
Bubble
Positions & sources
| Question | Position | Source |
|---|---|---|
| Before reading a particular study, you were skeptical of claim X. The study — large, in a strong journal — largely convinced you. It is now retracted for fabricated data. Stipulate: no other study has tested X, and nothing else you know bears on X beyond what you knew before. Where does your belief in X land now? | Back where I started — the study is simply erased | The Structure of Scientific Revolutions (1962) — a result's weight rests on the exemplar behind it; destroy the exemplar and the credence returns to the paradigm's prior state. (scenario answer — inferred from their documented positions, not a recorded statement) |
| Before results, you strongly doubted this: a one-time, one-hour classroom exercise measurably raises students' grades a year later. Then a randomized trial reports exactly that, statistically significant. Stipulate: preregistered, a large multi-school sample, an independent team, analysis matching the preregistration, and no flaws you can find. Where do you land now? | Probably true — a trial this clean should move me most of the way | The Structure of Scientific Revolutions (1962), ch. III–IV — a clean exemplar-grade result inside normal science is absorbed as strong confirmation by the community that shares the paradigm. (scenario answer — inferred from their documented positions, not a recorded statement) |
| You disagree with someone whose broader worldview is close to yours on a factual question. Stipulate: on this topic they're as informed and skilled as you, your checked track records on questions of this kind are equal, neither of you has a stake, and you've exchanged all evidence and arguments. You hold your view with high confidence; they hold theirs with moderate confidence. Neither of you has moved. Your response: | I move substantially toward them | The Structure of Scientific Revolutions (1962), ch. IV — normal science converges: practitioners sharing exemplars and values treat a peer's contrary result as a puzzle to be jointly solved, and beliefs move toward each other. (scenario answer — inferred from their documented positions, not a recorded statement) |
| Five people you know well report the same event: one evening, an object hovered unsupported in a public square for about ten seconds. Stipulate: each has been reliable for years, none knows the others, each reported separately, there's no footage, and no one has identified a trick, wire, magnet or collusion that could explain it. How likely is it that the object really hovered, with no conventional explanation? | Extremely unlikely — some ordinary explanation exists, found or not | The Structure of Scientific Revolutions (1962), ch. X — what a community can even see as a fact is filtered by its paradigm; testimony against the paradigm's world registers weakly. (scenario answer — inferred from their documented positions, not a recorded statement) |
| Five years ago a commentator you usually agree with publicly made a specific prediction, and it came true. Stipulate: their reasoning was wrong and it came true for unrelated reasons. In their track record, you count it as: | A hit, with a note that the reasoning failed | The Structure of Scientific Revolutions (1962), ch. III — within normal science a solved puzzle counts, though his framework demands noting when the solution was luck rather than articulation of the paradigm. (scenario answer — inferred from their documented positions, not a recorded statement) |
| Two physical theories predict identically every observation anyone can foresee making. By whatever measure of simplicity you'd defend, T1 is simpler. How much does T1's simplicity raise your confidence that T1 is the true one? | Slightly | "Objectivity, Value Judgment, and Theory Choice" (1973) — simplicity is one of five shared values that guide choice without dictating it; it tips, it does not settle. (scenario answer — inferred from their documented positions, not a recorded statement) |
| A physical-science theory you accept has passed every test for decades. Two independent teams, using different equipment and methods, now report the same observation that contradicts it. Stipulate: no explanation exists yet. Twenty years from now, how likely is it that the anomaly has been explained as error, or absorbed within the existing theory with no revision needed? | Likely | The Structure of Scientific Revolutions (1962), ch. VI–VIII — most anomalies are resolved by normal science or shelved; only rarely do they ripen into crisis. The smart money, on his history, is on absorption. (scenario answer — inferred from their documented positions, not a recorded statement) |
| A mechanism predicts that drug D should help condition C. Stipulate: every step of the mechanism has been shown in human tissue, and on mechanism alone you started out fairly confident D helps. Two independent randomized trials then found no significant effect — though each trial was small enough that it could have missed a real effect. Where do you land on D now? | Genuinely uncertain now | The Structure of Scientific Revolutions (1962), ch. VI — anomalies that resist are initially set aside by practitioners, not taken as verdicts. (scenario answer — inferred from their documented positions, not a recorded statement) |
| Your organization has a 40-year-old rule nobody can explain. Following it costs staff about 100 hours a week in total. Stipulate: you have authority to drop it, the records of why it began are lost, asking around has turned up nothing, and no one objects. You: | Keep it until someone finds the original reason | The Structure of Scientific Revolutions (1962), ch. VIII — a paradigm (or rule) is never rejected without a candidate to replace it; unexplained persistence is not grounds for abandonment. (scenario answer — inferred from their documented positions, not a recorded statement) |
| You disagree with someone whose broader worldview you think is badly wrong on a factual question. Stipulate: on this topic they're as informed and skilled as you, your checked track records on questions of this kind are equal, neither of you has a stake, and you've exchanged all evidence and arguments. You hold your view with high confidence; they hold theirs with moderate confidence. Neither of you has moved. Your response: | I stay where I was — a peer's disagreement, by itself, is not evidence about the fact | The Structure of Scientific Revolutions (1962), ch. XII — across paradigms, communication breaks down (incommensurability): the rival's 30% is not evidence in your paradigm's terms, and you do not move. His signature asymmetry. (scenario answer — inferred from their documented positions, not a recorded statement) |
| Suppose a worldview with a creator and one without predict identically every observation anyone can foresee making. By whatever measure of simplicity you'd defend, one is simpler, whichever one that is for you. How much does that raise your confidence that the simpler one is true? | Slightly | Same values doctrine applied to the creator case. (scenario answer — inferred from their documented positions, not a recorded statement) |
| Human beings arose entirely through unguided natural processes | Certainly true | The Structure of Scientific Revolutions (1962) — Darwinian evolution is his recurring model case of an established paradigm. |
| Experts are usually right about questions in their own field | Probably true | The Structure of Scientific Revolutions (1962), ch. III–IV — within a paradigm, the community of practitioners is the operative authority and is usually right by its lights. |