Kuhn's Structure of Scientific Revolutions – outline (2013)
uky.edu
uky.edu
"... Although they used different terminologies, both Kuhn and Michael Polanyi believed that scientists' subjective experiences made science a relativized discipline. Polanyi lectured on this topic for decades before Kuhn published The Structure of Scientific Revolutions." [2]
If you haven't checked out Polanyi yet, look up The Tacit Dimension — a very short book that talks about "tacit knowledge" (also discussed in uky.edu page, with attribution).
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michael_Polanyi
[2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thomas_Kuhn#Polanyi%E2%80%93Ku...
Related: Destin, at the Smarter Every Day YouTube channel, has been kind of sliding into the same distinction Polanyi outlined, between "tacit knowledge" and explicit knowledge. Destin would label those "understanding" and "knowledge", respectively, but he has a lot of neat demonstrations of this distinction, e.g. riding a backwards bicycle[0], or hovering a helicopter[1].
"Supporters of Polanyi charged Kuhn with plagiarism, as it was known that Kuhn attended several of Polanyi's lectures, and that the two men had debated endlessly over epistemology before either had achieved fame. After the charge of plagiarism, Kuhn acknowledged Polanyi in the Second edition of The Structure of Scientific Revolutions.[7] Despite this intellectual alliance, Polanyi's work was constantly interpreted by others within the framework of Kuhn's paradigm shifts, much to Polanyi's (and Kuhn's) dismay"
A lot of densely-written stuff to read through before coming to the heart of the matter.
That’s not a summary. To me at least.
What bothers me about this kind of material is it's such good material for someone who's not honest for "one upping" or saying "oh this is just another example of [insert phenomenon]". Without looking at the substance.
Math also has this property. In particular, and famously, statistics.
The problem isn't "this kind of material", as you put it, but the fact that the debates in question (e.g. climate change denial) are waged on appearance rather than substance; quacks get employed to publish studies that look "sciency", and appear to strengthen the arguments of special interests. More generally, misusing "this kind of material", and getting away with it, is precisely the same kind of crime as p-hacking.
And please let me offer you a gentle nudge: try not to think of ideas in terms of "this kind of material"; down that path, there are sometimes book burnings.
We all intellectually group things together by apparent semblance, but we should all also remember that this grouping is a time-saving tool, not a truth-finding tool. If you want to actually determine the validity of a study's statistical findings, the fact that its authors are from a prestigious university is absolutely no indication of truth. Similarly for any theoretical work, whether in empirical science or, say, history. The measure of truth is in the work, not around it.
Which is to say, don't judge books by their covers, even though obviously we all do, all the time.