This study aims to examine the thesis of incommensurability between paradigmatic traditions separated by a revolution, as presented by Kuhn in his major work The Structure of Scientific Revolutions, as well as the changes that it has undergone in the later writings of the philosopher. The problem that will guide our research has mainly focused clarify the reasons that lead Kuhn to restructure its conception of incommensurability in their PostStructure studies. In our view the reasons Kuhn change of position in his thesis of that approach, derive from the criticism he suffered in 1965, at the International Conference on Philosophy of Science. Among the criticisms that are analyzed in this paper, we highlight those made by Popper, who sees the thesis of incommensurability the defense of relativism, but also criticism of Lakatos, accusing Kuhn to be the defender of irrationalism in science. We hold that the philosopher restructures the thesis of incommensurability, in its PostStructure written in order to clarify the problem areas highlighted by its critics. We believe that his new position, which advocates local incommensurability, is more consistent and coherent than before, because it ensures the communicability and the choice between competing paradigms, thus overcoming the accusations of relativism and irrationalism. In order to present a possible solution to the outlined problem, the work will be developed in three chapters. In the first we present a complete analysis of how Kuhn sees the thesis of incommensurability in his work The Structure of Scientific Revolutions. In the second chapter, we will highlight the problematic aspects of the thesis that led the philosopher to be accused of defending the irrationalism and relativism in science. Finally, in the third chapter, we will seek to develop as Kuhn, in his postscripts, will seek to overcome the problems inherent in his thesis of incommensurability resorting to philosophy of language.
|
