
doi: 10.2307/279104
Aspects of Kuhn's The Structure of Scientific Revolutions are discussed and criticized. Problems are pointed out in three general areas: the latitude Kuhn allows in the concept paradigm, his views on the nature of scientific change, and his notion of incommensurability and the accompanying problems of relativism. The utilization of Kuhn's model by archaeologists is then critiqued, with a focus on the varying interpretations of the paradigmatic state of the discipline. Finally, consideration is given to the recent changes in archaeology that have led to the claim that there has been a scientific revolution in the field. It is argued that those ostensibly fundamental changes are neither revolutionary nor particulary beneficial to a scientific archaeology.
| selected citations These citations are derived from selected sources. This is an alternative to the "Influence" indicator, which also reflects the overall/total impact of an article in the research community at large, based on the underlying citation network (diachronically). | 59 | |
| popularity This indicator reflects the "current" impact/attention (the "hype") of an article in the research community at large, based on the underlying citation network. | Top 10% | |
| influence This indicator reflects the overall/total impact of an article in the research community at large, based on the underlying citation network (diachronically). | Top 10% | |
| impulse This indicator reflects the initial momentum of an article directly after its publication, based on the underlying citation network. | Top 10% |
