Thèse (M.A.)--Université Laval, 1996. / Bibliogr.: f. 99-101. Publié aussi en version électronique.

Zugl.: Göttingen, Universiẗat, Diss., 2004. / Hergestellt on demand.

Thesis (Ph.D. (Political and International Studies)) - Rhodes University, 2006.

yes / Thomas S. Kuhn is famous both for his work on the Copernican Revolution and his ‘paradigm’ view of scientific revolutions. But Kuhn later abandoned the notion of paradigm (and related notions) in favour of a more ‘evolutionary’ view of the history of science. Kuhn’s position therefore moved closer to ‘continuity’ models of scientific progress, for instance ‘chain-of-reasoning’ models, originally championed by D. Shapere. The purpose of this paper is to contribute to the debate around Kuhn’s new ‘developmental’ view and to evaluate these competing models with reference to some major innovations in the history of cosmology, from Copernicanism to modern cosmology. This evaluation is made possible through some unexpected overlap between Kuhn’s earlier discontinuity model and various versions of the later continuity models. It is the thesis of this paper that the ‘chain-of-reasoning’ model accounts better for the cosmological evidence than both Kuhn’s early paradigm model and his later developmental view of the history of science.

This dissertation aims to contrast the differences between Montesquieu¡¦s and Quesnay¡¦s thoughts of China Despotism theory, to analyze the methodology and epistemology used by the two scholars to demonstrate and observe traditional China despotism, and, to expound and examine the description of traditional China despotism in Montesquieu¡¦s and Quesnay¡¦s thoughts. Montesquieu was a rare one among Enlightenment philosophers who profoundly discussed China Despotism in the eighteenth century. In the elaboration of Montesquieu¡¦s China Despotism, there were lots of contradictions in De L'espirt Des Lois. Traditional China government was depreciated by him. From the empirical induce methodology, positivism epistemology and ontology¡¦s point of view, this dissertation tries to deeply analyze and research Montesquieu¡¥s China Despotism. At the time, there were also some Enlightenment Philosophers who have a different view of China Despotism. The representative was a Physiocrat ¡V Francois Quesnay. In his Le Despotisme De La Chine, he marked traditional China government positively. Quesnay, who developed his view based on the same empirical facts about traditional China according to the eighteenth century¡¦s Jesuits, travelers and businessmen and with the same natural science methodology, had totally different views and thoughts about China Despotism from Montesquieu. This dissertation has a detailed study and review on these differences. Questions will be explored in this dissertation are as below. Did the natural science methodology and epistemology of Montesquieu¡¦s and Quesnay¡¦s China Despotism strengthen the judgment of how they valued traditional China government? Were there pre-judgments in their so-called neutral and objective denouncement about the way they researched China Despotism in the empirical induce methodology and epistemology? Were Montesquieu¡¦s and Quesnay¡¦s judgments about China Depotism enhanced by the natural science methodology and epistemology a kind of western centralism? Did they, in the name of neutral and objective empirical induce methodology and epistemology that could not reason non-western value, refuse and devaluate other non-western value? This dissertation has a deeply reflection on these from the ¡§paradigm¡¨ and ¡§incommensurable¡¨ methodological concepts of Thomas S. Kuhn¡¦s. If Montesquieu¡¦s China Despotism was the main point of western culture, was the way Quesnay observed traditional China government presenting a different value in the west culture and there were still some admiring this kind of value? Was this kind of evaluation neglected by recent Chinese intellects? This is a serious problem worthy of reconsideration and reflection. Keywords: Montesquieu, François Quesnay, Physiocracy, Despotism, enlightened despotism, China Despotism, natural science methodology, theory laden, Thomas S. Kuhn, paradigm, incommensurable

Thomas S. Kuhn´s book, The Structure of Scientific Revolutions (1962), was received by the philosophical and scientific community as a revolutionary text. In it, Kuhn proposed a new way of comprehending scientific development. Unlike other philosophers of science of his day, who saw scientific development as a long, accumulative process, Kuhn proposed that scientific development is marked by disruptive processes called |scientific revolutions|. With the release of the Japanese edition of Structure, in 1969, Kuhn introduced an Afterword, which I consider to be an integral part of his concept of scientific development, as it´s complementary to his model and clarifies issues addressed in the 1962 work. According to the initial development model proposed in this Structure/Afterword set, disruptions in the scientific development process are marked by a succession of paradigms. These paradigms, for Kuhn, are a type of theoretical-methodological framework. They direct scientific activity towards the comprehension of phenomena studied by a scientific community. With this Dissertation I intend to critically analyse the scientific development model proposed in Structure, discussing the key concepts necessary for understanding this model. / O livro de Thomas S. Kuhn, A Estrutura das revoluções científicas (1962), foi recebido pela comunidade filosófica e científica como um texto revolucionário. Nele, Kuhn propõe uma nova forma de compreender o desenvolvimento científico. Diferentemente dos filósofos da ciência de sua época, que viam o desenvolvimento científico como um largo processo de acumulação, Kuhn propôs que o desenvolvimento científico está marcado por processos de ruptura denominados revoluções científicas . Em ocasião da edição japonesa da Estrutura, em 1969, Kuhn introduziu um Posfácio, que considero parte integrante de sua noção de desenvolvimento científico, pois é complementar ao seu modelo e traz esclarecimentos sobre as questões tratadas na obra de 1962. Conforme o modelo inicial de desenvolvimento presente no conjunto Estrutura/Posfácio, as rupturas no processo de desenvolvimento científico são marcadas pela sucessão de paradigmas. Os paradigmas, para Kuhn, são uma espécie de arcabouço teórico-metodológico. Eles direcionam a atividade científica para a compreensão dos fenômenos estudados por uma comunidade científica. Com esta Dissertação pretendo analisar de forma crítica o modelo de desenvolvimento científico presente na Estrutura, discorrendo sobre os conceitos-chave necessários para o entendimento do modelo.