Frank Kogan

"kuhn's theory seems to presented as if science as a whole is a field" -- mmmmph, what i meant here is "kuhn's theory seems to GET presented as if science as a whole is a field", which i think is more defensible

your response pretty much matches my feeling, that science is more like a looser accretion of disciplines, of different histories and revolutions which don't need to cross from one to another

but i wonder why then it's felt useful to have an overall project of the excloration of "scientific revolutions" -- why maintain a project unity?

(i mean, "*we're* looking at the usefulness of the theory OUTSIDE science, so we need a boundaryline for other reasons, but does kuhn ever even need to reach a generalised definition of "scientific revolution"? why can't he just carry on accumulating locally specific example? is this in fact what he's doing?)