kuhn

Computing hasn't yet gone through a thorough rewriting as described by Kuhn in Structure of Scientific Revolution.

The fundamental problem with testing psychology was explained by Thomas Kuhn in The Structure of Scientific Revolutions.

Granted, there are belief systems aplenty in scientific work (string theory?) but as Kuhn has written, sometimes Nature laughs and forces a change.

So Kuhn agrees that there is a universe and that there are, at least potentially, facts about that universe humans are capable of discovering.

If you're interested, I highly recommend reading the text -- Kuhn was an excellent writer [1].

See for example the books: 1) Charge and energy transfer dynamics in Molecular systems by Volkhard May and Oliver Kuhn (chapter 2) 2) Chemical Dynamics in Condensed Phases by Abraham NItzan.

If you've done the first Odersky course in coursera, the one he does with Roland Kuhn and Erik Meier is a very natural progression that will be far more practical than the original.

But it is flawed, not completely broken, and I think Kuhn makes too much of the flawed-ness which encourages people to imagine that it's completely broken and therefore the next paradigm shift will validate homeopathy.

But isn't this the ultimate point of "science studies" (broadly put) since the days of Kuhn, Lakatos, Latour and so on?

Kuhn's argument is that science has advanced, but not through a simple process of "refining".

For instance, Imre Lakatos take it further than Kuhn in his "Research Programs".

Kuhn's, "The Structure of Scientific Revolutions" is the standard place to start reading about that, but there's now a large body of literature on the anthropology of science.

However, they (Kuhn, Lakatos, Laudan) are common names for those who have studied philosophy of sciences.

Kuhn's idea is not that scientific knowledge might be wrong.

They have people like Jonas Bonér, Viktor Klang, Roland Kuhn, Mathias Doenitz, etc.