Author :
Abstract
Kuhn’un (1969) bilim tarihine çok farklı yaklaşımlar içeren eserinde, yazar kabaca bilim yapmanın ana esaslarını paradigma olarak adlandırmış olup bu esasların zaman içinde değiştiğini belirtmiştir. Yazar, paradigmatik değişime ilişkin bazı temel unsurlardan bahsetmiş olup sözü edilen kavramlardan, verili bir dönemin temel bilim mantığı olarak ifade ettiği paradigma, paradigmatik değişimlerin karşılaştırılmasına atıfta bulunan eş ölçülmezlik ve paradigmatik değişime değinen devrim kavramlarının öne çıktığı belirtilebilecektir. Kuhn’un değindiği bu kavramların zaman içinde pek çok farklı bilim alanlarındaki yansımalarına değinildiği ifade edilebilecek olup sözü edilen uygulamaların pek çoğunun sosyal bilimlerden ziyade doğa bilimlerine ilişkin olduğu belirtilebilecektir. Bu bağlamda, çalışmanın amacı, Kuhn tarafından belirtilen ve bilimsel devrimlere ilişkin kavramlara, ekonomi bilimi alanında yaşanan ve bahse konu alanı derinden etkilediği kaydedilen Klasik görüşten Keynesci ekonomiye geçiş konusu çerçevesinde değinilmeye çalışılacaktır. Diğer bir ifadeyle, söz konusu bu değişimin paradigmatik bir devrim olarak nitelendirilebileceği değerlendirilmekte olup değişim yukarıda belirtilen üç temel kavram bağlamında ele alınmaya çaba gösterilecektir.
Keywords
Abstract
In the work of Kuhn that has different approaches on history of science, writer terms the main principles of making science as paradigm and utters that these principles has changed over time. Kuhn mentions about some basic components of paradigmatic change and it is said that three of them are important. The first of them is paradigm which is described as the main stream of making science in a given period, the other one is about comparison of paradigmatic changes, and the last one is revolution of paradigms. These components has been subjects for different studies that is about the changes in reflections diverse scientific revolutions but most of them are on natural sciences rather than social sciences. The main aim of this paper, to touch on the components about paradigmatic changes that is mentioned by Kuhn on the scope of transition from Classical view to Keynesian view in the area of economy. In other words, this transition can be considered as a paradigmatic revolution, therefore it can be evaluated through the glass of these three components.
Keywords
- Bird, A. (2000). Thomas Kuhn. New Jersey: Princeton University Press.
- Bird, A. (2000). Thomas Kuhn. New Jersey: Princeton University Press.
- Bird, A. (2003). “Kuhn, Nominalism and Empiricism”. Philosophy of Science, 70 (4): 690-719.Bloor, D. (1971). “Two Paradigms for Scientific Knowledge?”. Science Studies, 1 (1): 101-115.
- Bokulich, A. (2006). “Heinsberg Meets Kuhn: Closed Theories and Paradigms”. Philosophy of Science, 73: 90-107.
- Case, K. E. ve Fair, R. C. (2004). The principles of economics. (7. Baskı), Prentice Hall.
- Dolfsma, W. ve Welch, P. J. (2009). “Paradigms and Novelty in Economics: The History of EconomicThought as a Source of Enlightenment”. American journal of Economics and Sociology, 68 (5): 1085- 1108.
- Howson, S. (2009). “Keynes and LSE Economists”. Journal of the History of Economic Thought 31 (3): 257-280.
- Irzik, G. ve Grünberg T. (1995). “Carnap and Kuhn: Arch Enemies or Close Allies?”. The British Journal for the Philosphy of Science, 46 (3): 285-307.
- Karsten, S. G. (1990). “Quantum Theory and Social Economics: The Holistic Approach of ModemPhysics Serves Better Than Newton's Mechanics in Approaching Reality”. American journal of Economics and Sociology, 49 (4): 385-398.
- Krige, J. (1978). “Popper’s Epistemology and the autonomy of Science”. Social Studies of Science, 8 (3): 287-307.
- Kuhn, T. (2005). Bilimsel Devrimlerin Yapısı. (Çev. / N. Kuyaş), İstanbul: Kırmızı Yayınları. (Orijinal Çalışma basım tarihi, 1965).
- Kvasz, L (1999). “On classification of Scientific Revolutions”. Journal of General Philosophy of Science, 30: 201-232.
- Maxwell, N. (2003). “The need for a Revolution in the Philosophy of Science”. Journal of General Philosophy of Science, 33: 381-408.
- Meccheri, N. (2007). “Wage behavior and unemployment in Keynes’ and New Keynesians’ views: A comparison”, European Journal of the History of Economic Thought, 14 (4): 701-724.
- Meiland, J. W. (1974). “Kuhn, Scheffler and Objectivity in Science”. Philosophy of Science, 41 (2): 179-187.
- Meynell, H. (1975). “Science, the Truth and Thomas Kuhn”. Mind, 84 (333): 79-93.
- Parsons, D. W. (1985). “Was Keynes Kuhnian? Keynes and the idea of Theoretical Revolutions”. British Journal of Political Science 15 (4): 451-471.
- Pieterse, N. J. (1998). “My paradigm or yours? Alternative Development, Post development, Reflexive development”, Development and Change, 29: 343-373.
- Pinch, T. J. (1997). “Kuhn – The Conservative and Radical Interpretaitons: Are Some Mertoninas ‘Kuhnians’ and Some ‘Kuhnians’ Mertoninas”. Social Studies of Science, 27 (3): 465-482.
- Pinto, O. J. C. (2007). “Carnap, Kuhn, and revisionism: on the publication of Sturucture in Encyclopedia”. Journal of General Philosophy of Science, 38: 147-157.
- Reisch,G. (1991). “Did Kuhn kill logical empiricism”? Philosophy of Science, 58: 264–277
- Renzi, B. G. (2009). “Kuhn’s Evolutionary Epistemology and Its Being Undermined by inadequate Biological Concepts”. Philosophy of Science, 76: 143-159.
- Ricardo, C. (2008). “Keynes’s realisms. Journal of the History of Economic Thought”, 15 (4): 672- 693.
- Ricci, D. (1977). “Reading Thomas Kuhn in the Post-Behavioral Era”. The Western Political Quartetly, 30 (1): 7-34.
- Richardson, A. (2004). “Robert K. Merton and Philosophy of Science”. Social Studies of Science, 34Sankey, H. (1993). “Kuhn’s Changing Concept of Incommensurability”. The British Journal for the Philosophy of Science, 44 (4): 759-774.
- Scheffler, I. (1972). “Vision and Revolution: A Postscript on Kuhn Author(s)”, Philosophy of Science, 39 (3): 366-374.
- Siegel, H. (1976) “Meiland on Scheffler, Kuhn and Objectivity in Science”. Philosophy of Science,Theodorou, P. (2004). “Of the same in the different. What is wrong with Kuhn’s use of “seeing” and “seeing as””. Journal for General Philosophy of Science, 35: 175-200.
- Toshiaki, H. (2007). “How did Keynes transform his theory from Tract into Treatise? – Considerationthorough primary material”. European Journal of the History of Economic Thought, 14 (2): 325-348.Vroey D. M. (1975). “Transition from Classical to Neoclassilcal Economics: A Scientific Revolution”. Journal of Economic Issues, 9 (3): 414-440.
- Zupan, M. E. (1991). “Paradigms and Cultures: Some Economic Reasons for Their Stickiness”. American journal of Economics and Sociology, 50 (1): 99-106.
- Zweynert, J. (2007). “How can the history of Economic Thought contribute to an understanding of Institutional Change?”. Journal of History of Economic Thought, 29 (2): 189-204.
