According to the back cover, The Structure of Scientific Revolutions is "considered one of 'The Hundred Most Influential Books Since the Second World War' by The Times Literary Supplement." I don’t necessarily agree with this assessment. Don’t miss understand what I’m saying; he is probably one of the more brilliant people that have ever walked this earth for all I know. But, I could not get over how difficult his writing style was to interpret. His form of writing is not something that most people who are not scientists are use too. From being written in a scientific and philosophical manner, to explaining a paradigm and normal science, to using words that I was trying to look up in the dictionary on every single page. The one thing I did care for was his redundancy in his book. His redundancy will grab your attention telling you to pay attention to this certain word or phrase because it will be important to understanding this book.
From the start of the book, I’ve come to the conclusion that Thomas Kuhn is almost writing a scientific and philosophical essay. As he continues to refer back to some of the more brilliant people in the history of the world such as Aristotle, Galileo, Einstein, Newton and Lavoisier, this is where I recognized the scientific and philosophical “writing style” he had. Numerous times he would refer back to one of these names and tell of their scientific development that was associated with their name. This, for whatever reason, made me think his writing was actually organized; I just didn’t understand it. He gave explanations behind why he was referencing this particular person making everything attempt to flow a little bit better. For me, philosophy was never a subject that I understood well, therefore, it was very hard for me to follow in what he was saying.
Throughout this essay, Thomas Kuhn puts a large emphasis on paradigms, and normal science. From what I understood, a paradigm