Kuhn Cites Piaget — But He Doesn’t Think Like Him
Thomas Kuhn famously changed how we understand science with his theory of paradigms. In his view, scientific knowledge doesn’t progress cumulatively, but rather through revolutions — abrupt shifts in worldview that lead scientists to “see” the world in entirely new ways.
In one of the most well-known passages of The Structure of Scientific Revolutions, Kuhn invokes Jean Piaget. He compares a scientific paradigm shift to cognitive development in children: just as a child reorganizes their perception and understanding as they grow, so does a scientist when they adopt a new paradigm.
Get PJ Sanchez-Luengo’s stories in your inbox
Join Medium for free to get updates from this writer.
But here’s the problem: Kuhn uses Piaget’s name, but his theory is anything but Piagetian.
Piaget believed knowledge is constructed progressively through active engagement with reality. Each new cognitive structure builds upon and integrates the previous ones. There are no total breaks, no unreachable conceptual worlds. Reality remains constant, and thought becomes more refined in how it grasps it.
Kuhn, by contrast, emphasizes incommensurability: what makes sense in one paradigm may be meaningless in another. Each scientific community constructs its own universe of meaning. Reality becomes a background actor — secondary to shared language and internal frameworks.
So while Kuhn cites Piaget, he does so within a framework entirely opposed to Piaget’s. It’s a rhetorical borrowing, not a theoretical alignment. Like quoting Darwin to argue for intelligent design.
The result? Elegant, yes. Persuasive, maybe. But philosophically contradictory.
