Mind Matters: A Book Club for Big Ideas

Join us for a discussion of The Structure of Scientific Revolutions by Thomas S. Kuhn.
Synopsis:

• A good book may have the power to change the way we see the world, but a great book actually becomes part of our daily consciousness, pervading our thinking to the point that we take it for granted, and we forget how provocative and challenging its ideas once were—and still are. The Structure of Scientific Revolutions is that kind of book. When it was first published in 1962, it was a landmark event in the history and philosophy of science. Fifty years later, it still has many lessons to teach.
  With The Structure of Scientific Revolutions, Kuhn challenged long-standing linear notions of scientific progress, arguing that transformative ideas don’t arise from the day-to-day, gradual process of experimentation and data accumulation but that the revolutions in science, those breakthrough moments that disrupt accepted thinking and offer unanticipated ideas, occur outside of “normal science,” as he called it. Though Kuhn was writing when physics ruled the sciences, his ideas on how scientific revolutions bring order to the anomalies that amass over time in research experiments are still instructive in our biotech age.

Discussion Questions (subject to revision):

1. Kuhn distinguishes between normal science—puzzle-solving within an accepted framework—and revolutionary science, which overturns that framework. How do you see this tension playing out in the sciences (or other fields) today?
2. He describes paradigm shifts as moments when anomalies accumulate until the old model can no longer contain them. Can you think of historical or modern examples of such “crisis points,” in science or elsewhere?
3. According to Kuhn, scientists often resist revolutionary ideas not because they’re irrational, but because their work, training, and values are bound to an existing paradigm. How does this complicate the idea of scientific “objectivity”?
4. The book challenges the notion of steady, cumulative progress in science. If knowledge advances through disruptive revolutions rather than gradual refinement, what does that imply about the idea of “truth” or scientific realism?
5. Kuhn suggests that paradigm shifts are partially incommensurable—that new and old worldviews can’t be directly compared in a neutral way. How do you interpret this idea? Do you think communication across paradigms is possible?
6. The term paradigm shift has entered popular culture, used far beyond science. What happens to Kuhn’s original meaning when it’s applied to art, politics, or technology? Does it still capture something real, or has it become a buzzword?
7. How does Kuhn’s view compare with more traditional views of scientific development (like Popper’s falsificationism or the Enlightenment ideal of rational progress)? What kind of philosophy of science does Kuhn invite us to adopt?
8. Kuhn was writing in a time when physics dominated the imagination of science. How might his framework apply—or fail to apply—to contemporary fields like genetics, artificial intelligence, or climate science?
9. If paradigms determine what counts as a valid question or a meaningful observation, what does that say about the limits of human understanding? Are there truths that lie permanently outside any paradigm?
10. Finally, Kuhn’s work blurs the line between discovery and interpretation. Does The Structure of Scientific Revolutions make you more skeptical about the objectivity of science—or more appreciative of its creativity and humanity?

Whether you’ve read the whole book or just want to explore some of its central ideas, you’re welcome to join!

If you need help accessing the text, please feel free to reach out to me directly.

Join us for a discussion of Existential Physics: A Scientist's Guide to Life's Biggest Questions by Sabine Hossenfelder.
Synopsis:

• From renowned physicist and creator of the YouTube series “Science without the Gobbledygook,” a book that takes a no-nonsense approach to life’s biggest questions, and wrestles with what physics really says about the human condition
  Not only can we not currently explain the origin of the universe, it is questionable we will ever be able to explain it. The notion that there are universes within particles, or that particles are conscious, is ascientific, as is the hypothesis that our universe is a computer simulation. On the other hand, the idea that the universe itself is conscious is difficult to rule out entirely.
  According to Sabine Hossenfelder, it is not a coincidence that quantum entanglement and vacuum energy have become the go-to explanations of alternative healers, or that people believe their deceased grandmother is still alive because of quantum mechanics. Science and religion have the same roots, and they still tackle some of the same Where do we come from? Where do we go to? How much can we know? The area of science that is closest to answering these questions is physics. Over the last century, physicists have learned a lot about which spiritual ideas are still compatible with the laws of nature. Not always, though, have they stayed on the scientific side of the debate.
  In this lively, thought-provoking book, Hossenfelder takes on the biggest questions in Does the past still exist? Do particles think? Was the universe made for us? Has physics ruled out free will? Will we ever have a theory of everything? She lays out how far physicists are on the way to answering these questions, where the current limits are, and what questions might well remain unanswerable forever. Her book offers a no-nonsense yet entertaining take on some of the toughest riddles in existence, and will give the reader a solid grasp on what we know—and what we don’t know.

Discussion Questions (subject to revision):

1. Hossenfelder criticizes speculative ideas like the multiverse, panpsychism, and simulation theory for overstepping what physics can test. Where do you think the line should be drawn between scientific imagination and metaphysical storytelling?
2. The book questions whether free will survives in a deterministic or probabilistic universe. Does redefining free will as “acting according to one’s motives and understanding” preserve its essence, or empty it of significance?
3. If humans are in principle predictable physical systems, what becomes of moral responsibility, love, or creativity?
4. If the past, present, and future all coexist in a “block universe,” what happens to the idea of change, choice, or moral responsibility?
5. If consciousness can’t be fully captured by computation or physics, does that point to a limitation in science—or in our current understanding of what consciousness is?
6. The anthropic principle claims we observe a universe compatible with life simply because we are here to observe it. Is that a profound insight or a tautology?
7. Hossenfelder insists that physics rules out no mystery except those that contradict evidence. Does this leave room for spiritual or philosophical forms of wonder, or only scientific curiosity?
8. How should scientists communicate the boundaries of what physics can say without undermining the sense of wonder that draws people to big questions in the first place?

Whether you’ve read the whole book or just want to explore some of its central ideas, you’re welcome to join! If you need help accessing the text, please feel free to reach out to me directly.

Thanks to Spartacus Books for generously opening up their space for us! If you're able, please support them with a small donation (suggested: $2), or with a purchase if one of their titles catches your fancy.