English (United Kingdom)

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/featured_content/oa?rat=en

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/highlighted_journal/

Global: Zendy Plus annual

Presents the access of premium content as premium feature

Premium Content

Presents the keyphrase highlighting as premium feature

Keyphrase Highlighting

Presents the summarisation as premium feature

Summarisation

Insights

Presents the pdf analysis as premium feature

PDF Analysis

Presents the zaia usage as premium feature

ZAIA

Global: Zendy Plus monthly

Global: Zendy Tools annual

Global: Zendy Tools monthly

Global: Zendy Free Plan

Thomas Kuhn interpreto su obra como una filosofia de las practicas cientificas. Desde entonces, autores como Doppelt y Rouse proporcionaron una interpretacion donde la perspectiva de Kuhn constituye una ruptura con la imagen de la ciencia como sistema de conocimientos. En este articulo mostrare que La estructura de las revoluciones cientificas esta constituida por la tension existente entre una perspectiva de la ciencia como sistema de conocimientos y una perspectiva de la ciencia como sistema de practicas, asi como por un modelo dicotomico que le lleva a producir -a casi cincuenta anos de su publicacion- un legado ambiguo y paradojico. Thomas Kuhn interpreted his work as a philosophy of scientific practice. Since then, authors such as Doppelt and Rouse have offered an interpretation in which Kuhn’s perspective represents a rupture with the image of science as a knowledge system. In this article I will show that The Structure of Scientific Revolutions is based upon a tension between a perspective of science as a knowledge system and a perspective of science as a system of practice, as well as by a dichotomous model that —almost 50 years after it was published — leads to an ambiguous and paradoxical legacy.

Las tensiones de la estructura de las revoluciones científicas y el legado de Thomas Kuhn