From Fleck's Denkstil to Kuhn's paradigm: Conceptual schemes and incommensurability

Abstract

This article argues that the limited influence of Ludwik Fleck's ideas on philosophy of science is due not only to their indirect dissemination by way of Thomas Kuhn, but also to an incommensurability between the standard conceptual framework of history and philosophy of science and Fleck's own more integratedly historico-social and praxis-oriented approach to understanding the evolution of scientific discovery. What Kuhn named "paradigm" offers a periphrastic rendering or oblique translation of Fleck's Denkstil/Denkkollektiv, a derivation that may also account for the lability of the term "paradigm". This was due not to Kuhn's unwillingness to credit Fleck but rather to the cold war political circumstances surrounding the writing of The Structure of Scientific Revolutions. Following a discussion of Fleck's anatomical allusions, I include a brief discussion of Aristotle (on menstruation and darkened mirrors) and conclude with a reference to the productivity of error in Mach and Nietzsche.

The Philosophical Works of Ludwik Fleck and Their Potential Meaning for Teaching and Learning Science

“…Although his ideas had already been developed during the 1920s and 1930s, they have remained largely unrecognized for many years owing to the tragic history of Ludwik Fleck's life (Leszczyńska 2009). In recent years, however, Fleck's works have been intensively discussed regarding his philosophy, due to their interrelatedness to the works of Thomas S. Kuhn (Babich 2003). However, in education, in general, and in science education, in particular, Fleck's ideas have been rarely discussed or applied.…”

“…It seems that Kuhn knew that he had to credit Fleck, but maybe he considered his work to largely stem from Fleck's ideas. This is one case why during the last decade Fleck and Kuhn (and their ideas) have been compared by philosophers in many different ways (Babich 2003). 5 Few of the articles published to date have discussed the great overlap between Fleck's and Kuhn's work.…”

A toxic mix? Comparative efficiency and the privatization of sanitation services in India

“…While thought-style is obviously a form of institutionalization theory, it is much closer to the 'old institutionalism' (Selznick, 1984(Selznick, [1949) than to new institutional economics, which mainly restricts its critique of neoclassical economics to information asymmetry and consequently bounded rationality (Fine and Jomo, 2006). Thomas Kuhn (1970[1962) translated Fleck's thought-style concept into the scientific paradigm in the development of his theory of scientific revolutions 4 (Babich, 2003a, b). However, the paradigm concept, developed in the course of the Cold War and defended against an onslaught of criticism from empirical positivists, dilutes and undermines the critical thrust of Fleck's thought-style theory.…”

Kuhn’s “wrong turning” and legacy today

“…It has been debated (e.g. Babich 2003;Knoblauch 2010) to what extent Kuhn's paradigm may have been influenced by Fleck's thought style or thought collective. Despite the similarity between paradigm and thought style, I still contend that Kuhn's introduction of the concept of paradigm is a novel contribution to the philosophy of science in the 1960s.…”