كوهن، تاريخ‌نگاري و انقلاب علمي

Kuhn, the Scientific Revolution and Historiography of Science

مورخان امروزه علم در بارۀ مفهوم انقلاب علمي ترديدهاي فراواني كرده‌اند. در اين مقاله به بررسي مفهوم انقلاب علمي در نزد كوهن و بررسي دو چالش مهم تاريخ‌نگاري علم مي‌پردازيم. چالش اول ناظر به ناآشنا بودن مقولۀ انقلاب براي بازيگران قرن هفدهم است. چالش دوم مبهم بودن معيارهاي تشخيص انقلاب است. واژۀ انقلاب در مورد تحول اساسي در فلسفۀ طبيعي قرن هفدهم معيارهاي تاريخ‌نگاران را برآورده نمي‌سازد. با وجود اين به نظر مي‌رسد كه بتوان از آن به مثابۀ استعاره‌اي مفيد در بيان تحولات قرن هفدهم استفاده كرد.

Revolution is an essential element of Kuhn's analysis of the evolution of science. Inspired by Koyré and his contemporary philosophers and historians, Kuhn depicts history of science as epochs of different paradigms separated by big revolutions. In the light of new historiography of science, Historians themselves voice substantial grounds for unease about the coherence and historical validity of the notion of a Scientific Revolution and thereby casting doubts on revolutions in science generally. They note how local and specialized studies of the sciences in the period have led to "impatience" with the grand narrative of Thomas Kuhn. Contrary to what Kuhn believes, recent studies undermine notions of a unitary revolution conceived in terms of transformation of methodology and metaphysical presupposition or of massive advance in knowledge achieved on many disciplinary fronts. Despite this grand skepticism, I will argue that revolution remains to be an appropriate metaphor specially in the historical narrative of the seventeenth century.