In _The Function of Dogma in Scientific Research_ (1979), Thomas Kuhn emphasizes the need for mature sciences to train their human resources by promoting a strong adherence to the ontological and epistemological foundations that support their paradigmatic conception. This strong thesis, which somehow removes perspective from scientists, raises the question of how such strong dogmatic adherence allows criticism and, ultimately, the scientific revolution. In “Normal Science, Dogmatism and Progress…
Read moreIn _The Function of Dogma in Scientific Research_ (1979), Thomas Kuhn emphasizes the need for mature sciences to train their human resources by promoting a strong adherence to the ontological and epistemological foundations that support their paradigmatic conception. This strong thesis, which somehow removes perspective from scientists, raises the question of how such strong dogmatic adherence allows criticism and, ultimately, the scientific revolution. In “Normal Science, Dogmatism and Progress” (2023), Pablo Melogno critically reviews this Kuhnian proposal and several analyses of his work. He concludes that Kuhn's proposal is accurate in that he contemplates how the tension between conservation and criticism allows, in certain circumstances, to sustain the strong built-in adhesion and, in other circumstances, to exercise informed criticism in the face of an overwhelming accumulation of anomalies. In this paper, I suggest that not only rational factors lead a group to decide on continuity or paradigmatic change but also cultural and ideological factors, often naturalized and difficult to objectify.
