Kuhn, in Metaphors and Through [1993], claims:

“Metaphors play an essential role in establishing links between scientific language and the world. Those links are not, however, given once and for all. Theory change, in particular, is accompanied by a change in some of the relevant metaphors and in the corresponding parts of the network of similarities through which terms attach to nature.”

Given that exemplars correspond to images of something concrete, and let scientists see similarities between similar problems, can examplars be seen as metaphors as well?

Which is the main sense of "metaphor in science" in Kuhn's philosophy?

  • 1
    Is the reference Metaphors and Through correct? Sep 25, 2018 at 4:05
  • 2
    @FrankHubeny - NO. It is Metaphor in Science, published into Andrew Ortony (editor), Metaphor and Thought (Cambridge UP, 1993) and reprinted as Ch.8 of Thomas Kuhn, The Road since Structure : Philosophical Essays 1970-1993 (The University of Chicago Press, 2000). Sep 25, 2018 at 6:27
  • 1
    See Metaphor for the context of Kuhn's paper : Max Balck's theory of the way metaphor works. Sep 25, 2018 at 9:54
  • Not clear... exemplars in Kuhn's SSR are books: Ptolemy's Almagest, Lavoisier's Traité élémentaire de chimie, and Newton's Principia Mathematica and Opticks. Sep 25, 2018 at 10:10
  • this almost reads like an apologia of Jordan Peterson
    – amphibient
    Sep 26, 2018 at 18:15


You must log in to answer this question.

Browse other questions tagged .