I have to write some questions on a Thomas Kuhn article for day after tomorrow for the Theory blog. Humanists want to see him (mistakenly, I think) as a relativist, and this particular article aims to answer the critique from scientists and philosophers of science who accuse him more or less of the same thing. What the humanists celebrate is what the scientists fear: the idea that science is not "objective."

It (The Stucture of Scientific Revolutions) one of the books that almost everyone tends to misrepresent or oversimplify--sort of like Borges' "Pierre Menard" which I think is much more subtle than from the prevailing, "skeptical" reading would allow. What if "Pierre Menard" means the opposite of what everyone thinks it means?

My choice to start the theory class with a philosophy of science essay is quite perverse. But I think the idea of paradigm choice is fundamental no matter what the discipline.