![Sample our Global Development journals, sign in here to start your access, latest two full volumes FREE to you for 14 days]({"type":"image" , "src" : "/sda/5929/TOC-Subject-Sample-2021-Global-Development.jpg"})
Notes
1 In addition to the special issue on Kuhn in Historical Studies of the Natural Sciences (vol. 42, no. 4, 2012), several essays on Kuhn's Structure were published in the section of Social Studies of Science (vol. 42, June 2012) that recognized both the fiftieth anniversary of Kuhn's Structure and the twenty-fifth anniversary of Bruno Latour's Laboratory Life. The Max Planck Institute for the History of Science in Berlin also plans to publish an edited volume of essays based on papers presented at the workshop “Toward a History of the History of Science: Fifty Years since ‘Structure,’” held 17–20 October 2012.
2 For instance, in early June, the Department of Philosophy at National Taiwan University, under the auspices of the Taiwanese National Science Council, convened an international conference related to Kuhn's legacy on “Incommensurability 50” (see www.philo.ntu.edu.tw/lmm/inc50/inc50.htm). In early July, the central theme of the program for the annual meeting of the Korean Society for Philosophy of Science was “Thomas Kuhn's Philosophy of Science and Its 50-Year Legacy and Prospect.” And in August, National Yang Ming University convened a “Structure 50” conference in Taipei, Taiwan. Furthermore, the Chinese journal Kexue wenhua pinglun 科學文化評論 (Science and Culture Review) is publishing a special issue on Structure's influence on the history and philosophy of science in mainland China.
3 See, e.g., the complexity of the topic in Japan discussed in CitationNakajima 2012.
4 Nakayama was working on the Japanese translation at the same time that the first German (1967) and Italian (1969) translations were published. The first French (1972), Polish (1977), and Hebrew (1977) translations followed Nakayama's Japanese translation.
5 Kuhn credits Nakayama in the first footnote to his postscript.
6 No reviewer of this long article (published by Brill simultaneously as a book), then or since, recognized Sivin's use of the hypotheses about the character of scientific revolutions in Kuhn's Structure.
7 For insights into this early academic history, see Lin and Fu (Citation1993: xiv, n. 2).
8 Before retirement, Kuo was a noted historian of modern China and the history of science in the Institute of Modern History, Academia Sinica, Taiwan.
9 Fan Dainian was editor in chief of the Journal of Dialectics of Nature from 1980 to 1994.
10 Originally published in Chinese, the articles that appear in CitationFan and Cohen 1996 were selected from the first five volumes of the Journal of Dialectics of Nature, published by the Chinese Academy of Sciences between 1979 and 1985, and introduced mainland Chinese scholarship on the history and philosophy of science to English-reading scholars.
11 Consequently, none of the articles Fan selected for publication in CitationFan and Cohen 1996 engaged explicitly with Kuhn, though as Fan noted, applied sociology of science and practical studies of science policy had started earlier and so he selected two articles on science policy to represent these developments.
12 Kim received her PhD in chemistry from the University of Virginia in 1971 and was professor in chemistry and the history of science from 1974 to 1999, first at Seoul National University and then at Sook Myung Women's University. She is most famous for being the minister of environment in the Kim Daejung government from June 1999 to February 2003 (see CitationWilkerson 2001).
13 Although a third Korean translation was published in 1995, it did not specify the translator and was intended as an English-language education text (it contains the English text as well as its corresponding Korean translation, page by page). CitationYi (2007) did not view this version as an “academic” translation and so did not review it.
14 Communication from Yi Sang Wook, 8 July 2012.
15 Nakayama states that “the same subject was later more fully and systematically investigated by the Japan Science Council” (2007: 6n7). Nine Japanese reports from 2004 to 2008 that mention Kuhn can be found at www.scj.go.jp/en/report/index.html.
16 CitationNakajima 2012 cites CitationNakayama 1984a: 6, 166. It should be noted that their use of paradigm, as with sociologists, political scientists, and economists in the West, was loosely interpreted for their own ends.
17 On the importance since Sasaki's return to Japan in 1980 of his teaching on professionalism among Japanese historians of science and Kuhn's significance for doing the social history of science, see CitationNakajima 2012: 464. For the engagement between Kuhn and Sasaki, specifically Sasaki's argument of comparable revolutions in the history of Western mathematics, see CitationVandoulakis 2005. I do not know, however, whether Sasaki applied Structure to Chinese or Japanese mathematics or inspired anyone else to do so.
18 The earlier 1980 mainland Chinese translation appears not to have been available to them at the time. A third translation of Structure into Chinese in Citation2003, translated by Jin Wulun 金吾伦 and Hu Xinhe 胡新和, is considered in part borrowed from and inferior to the now standard 1985 Taiwanese publication. See CitationSun 2003.
19 Fu, for example, acknowledged Kuhn's “patience, encouragement and critical comments” on a draft of his paper on “Problem Domain” that he presented at the Boston Colloquium for the Philosophy of Science in 1990. According to e-mail communication, Kuhn invited Fu home for tea after the colloquium. Fu also credits discussions with Kuhn, Robert Cohen, and other philosophers of science in Tu Weiming's Chinese culture seminar at Harvard 1989–90, particularly related to his views on bilingualism and comparativity. See CitationFu 1993b: 142, 143, n. 2, n. 6.
20 Fu also referred to “a kind of Kuhnian normal science progress” (Citation1993c: 256) to characterize the successes of the 1980s Taiwanese academic strategy of sinicization in the human and behavioral sciences.
21 One critical dimension of CitationFu and Zhu 2001 is the involvement of sociologists as well as historians and philosophers of science in Taiwan.
This essay is an expanded version of an essay requested for the 2012 special issue on Kuhn's Structure in Historical Studies of the Natural Sciences (42, no. 4). I thank my colleagues in the history of science, technology, and medicine in East Asia who helped me gather the necessary, even revelatory, information that made this review article possible: Alexander Bay, Karine Chemla, Chu Pingyi, John DiMoia, Benjamin Elman, Fan Fa-ti, Fu Daiwie, Yulia Frumer, Axel Gelfert, Ito Kenji, Kim Yung Sik, Lim Jongtae, Nakayama Shigeru, Nathan Sivin, and Yi Sang Wook. In the citations in this essay, I follow the East Asian convention for East Asian surnames and place them first.