Kuhn, Popper, and the Superconducting Supercollider

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

2 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

The demise of the Superconducting Supercollider (SSC) is often explained in terms of the strain that it placed on the federal budget of the United States, and change in national security interests with the end of the Cold War. Recent work by Steve Fuller provides a framework to re-examine this episode in epistemological terms using the work of Kuhn and Popper. Using this framework, it is tempting to explain the demise as resulting from the overly Kuhnian character of its proponents, who supposedly argued for its construction by appealing to the importance of testing the predictions of a specific paradigm (i.e. the Standard Model). On this reading, the SSC case appears as an example of how Kuhn's paradigm-driven view of science was invoked to keep science closed and autonomous from society. I argue that the SSC episode should not be viewed as giving support to the displacement of Kuhn's view of science for Popper's, and that such a displacement is detrimental to the project of integrating discussion on science into the public sphere. Drawing upon Rouse and Wimsatt, I argue that understanding paradigms as practices blunts some criticisms against Kuhn's model, and that his model should play an important epistemological role in the aforementioned project.

Original languageEnglish
Pages (from-to)301-314
Number of pages14
JournalStudies in History and Philosophy of Science Part A
Volume40
Issue number3
DOIs
Publication statusPublished - 2009 Sep
Externally publishedYes

Fingerprint

Paradigm
Demise
Epistemological
Testing
Steve Fuller
Cold
Prediction
Standard Model
Criticism
National Security
Public Sphere

Keywords

  • Big Science
  • Karl Popper
  • Steve Fuller
  • Superconducting Supercollider
  • Thomas S. Kuhn

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • History and Philosophy of Science
  • History

Cite this

Kuhn, Popper, and the Superconducting Supercollider. / Domondon, Andrew.

In: Studies in History and Philosophy of Science Part A, Vol. 40, No. 3, 09.2009, p. 301-314.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

@article{bd4edb38a3b6450ca8aacf9873371953,
title = "Kuhn, Popper, and the Superconducting Supercollider",
abstract = "The demise of the Superconducting Supercollider (SSC) is often explained in terms of the strain that it placed on the federal budget of the United States, and change in national security interests with the end of the Cold War. Recent work by Steve Fuller provides a framework to re-examine this episode in epistemological terms using the work of Kuhn and Popper. Using this framework, it is tempting to explain the demise as resulting from the overly Kuhnian character of its proponents, who supposedly argued for its construction by appealing to the importance of testing the predictions of a specific paradigm (i.e. the Standard Model). On this reading, the SSC case appears as an example of how Kuhn's paradigm-driven view of science was invoked to keep science closed and autonomous from society. I argue that the SSC episode should not be viewed as giving support to the displacement of Kuhn's view of science for Popper's, and that such a displacement is detrimental to the project of integrating discussion on science into the public sphere. Drawing upon Rouse and Wimsatt, I argue that understanding paradigms as practices blunts some criticisms against Kuhn's model, and that his model should play an important epistemological role in the aforementioned project.",
keywords = "Big Science, Karl Popper, Steve Fuller, Superconducting Supercollider, Thomas S. Kuhn",
author = "Andrew Domondon",
year = "2009",
month = "9",
doi = "10.1016/j.shpsa.2009.06.004",
language = "English",
volume = "40",
pages = "301--314",
journal = "Studies in History and Philosophy of Science",
issn = "0039-3681",
publisher = "Elsevier Limited",
number = "3",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Kuhn, Popper, and the Superconducting Supercollider

AU - Domondon, Andrew

PY - 2009/9

Y1 - 2009/9

N2 - The demise of the Superconducting Supercollider (SSC) is often explained in terms of the strain that it placed on the federal budget of the United States, and change in national security interests with the end of the Cold War. Recent work by Steve Fuller provides a framework to re-examine this episode in epistemological terms using the work of Kuhn and Popper. Using this framework, it is tempting to explain the demise as resulting from the overly Kuhnian character of its proponents, who supposedly argued for its construction by appealing to the importance of testing the predictions of a specific paradigm (i.e. the Standard Model). On this reading, the SSC case appears as an example of how Kuhn's paradigm-driven view of science was invoked to keep science closed and autonomous from society. I argue that the SSC episode should not be viewed as giving support to the displacement of Kuhn's view of science for Popper's, and that such a displacement is detrimental to the project of integrating discussion on science into the public sphere. Drawing upon Rouse and Wimsatt, I argue that understanding paradigms as practices blunts some criticisms against Kuhn's model, and that his model should play an important epistemological role in the aforementioned project.

AB - The demise of the Superconducting Supercollider (SSC) is often explained in terms of the strain that it placed on the federal budget of the United States, and change in national security interests with the end of the Cold War. Recent work by Steve Fuller provides a framework to re-examine this episode in epistemological terms using the work of Kuhn and Popper. Using this framework, it is tempting to explain the demise as resulting from the overly Kuhnian character of its proponents, who supposedly argued for its construction by appealing to the importance of testing the predictions of a specific paradigm (i.e. the Standard Model). On this reading, the SSC case appears as an example of how Kuhn's paradigm-driven view of science was invoked to keep science closed and autonomous from society. I argue that the SSC episode should not be viewed as giving support to the displacement of Kuhn's view of science for Popper's, and that such a displacement is detrimental to the project of integrating discussion on science into the public sphere. Drawing upon Rouse and Wimsatt, I argue that understanding paradigms as practices blunts some criticisms against Kuhn's model, and that his model should play an important epistemological role in the aforementioned project.

KW - Big Science

KW - Karl Popper

KW - Steve Fuller

KW - Superconducting Supercollider

KW - Thomas S. Kuhn

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=69749103564&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=69749103564&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1016/j.shpsa.2009.06.004

DO - 10.1016/j.shpsa.2009.06.004

M3 - Article

AN - SCOPUS:69749103564

VL - 40

SP - 301

EP - 314

JO - Studies in History and Philosophy of Science

JF - Studies in History and Philosophy of Science

SN - 0039-3681

IS - 3

ER -