I need help understanding what Kuhn means by stating, in his bookThe Structure of Scientific Revolutions, that what drives scientific breakthroughs is paradigm shifts, while comparing it to Galison's view that scientific breakthroughs are driven by metaphysics and mechanisms as stated in Einstein's Clocks: The Place of Time. What are the similarities and differences in their perspectives on what drives science? Sources: http://www.f.waseda.jp/sidoli/Galison_2000.pdf https://www.amazon.com/Structure-Scientific-Revolutions-Thomas-Kuhn/dp/0226458083/ref=pd_sbs_14_img_0/142-4304789-0458460?_encoding=UTF8&pd_rd_i=0226458083&pd_rd_r=fdc7ba7a-f7bb-41d3-8d29-ba5d5191df07&pd_rd_w=8cfIh&pd_rd_wg=5kQcW&pf_rd_p=5cfcfe89-300f-47d2-b1ad-a4e27203a02a&pf_rd_r=WA82THFE8R6FMZW24WSH&psc=1&refRID=WA82THFE8R6FMZW24WSH
Thomas Kuhn and Peter Galison largely approach scientific breakthroughs in different ways. There are a few similarities, in that both men address the innovative approaches of individuals as driving forces behind changes that occur in science: a select few can think outside the box, so to speak. Kuhn, however, believes that those individuals operate within a larger realm in which the broader range of their training and experience, along with the availability of an audience of like-minded people, is equally as important as the new idea itself. The innovator must have enough background to assess the importance of an anomalous approach, and other people must be willing to believe in the innovation, or it will...
(The entire section contains 335 words.)
check Approved by eNotes Editorial