Relativism refers to the different approaches to arrive at a decision. Kuhn contends that there are no independent standards focused on particular knowledge or reality that assist in making a reasoned judgment. Instead, rational judgments are influenced by socioeconomic, societal, and historical factors, leading to relativism.
Kuhn considers scientific theories to be an evolutionary mechanism in the sense that scientific research is unidirectional and permanent. Charges of relativism are levied against him because he has problems of incommensurability and paradigm changes. Kuhn’s philosophy creates concern for those who believe in orthodox scientific accounts because it is undirected and continuously radical doctrines on evidence and observations. It is reasonable progress in which it gains more truth and accuracy as errors are eliminated according to results. Kuhn tends to disagree to this in that his science is not cumulative but rather depends on the paradigm shift from one scenario to another (Hesse, Mary). He is not elaborative on what is meant by the drastic shift or change from one situation to another. Moreover, Kuhn’s science is non-progressive as traditional science claims. The only progress is found within the context of paradigm in the paradigmatic level only, but on the later post-script he claims science to be irreversible and biological instead of cumulative and ever progressive as it is articulated by traditional medicine. However, he agrees with the conventional ideas of unidirectional progress, but also he got concepts of development in a level of clarity and in-depth breadth just in an evolutionary way. In my view, the claims on the post-script are not valid enough to a certain the claims on scientific revolution.
In my response to how Kuhn solves the relativism charges posed by critiques, Kuhn adheres to comparison to the theory which relates conceptual relativism. In this approach, it claims that the world does operate on a different set of beliefs and philosophies. The view of the world makes the world to run in two coherent frameworks of reality. Just like Kuhn’s theory, during the transition of paradigm, there is need to change the familiarity and meaning of concepts. It creates conceptual relativism just like Kuhn’s paradigm are incommensurable. The post-script of Kuhn gives the actual justification of the resemblance of the two theoretical models. The reply to relativism is accumulatively valid enough to prove the point of relating his arguments with the conceptual relativism. Kuhn creates the logical reasoning to solve the confusion created by the previous edited article on the topic (Hesse, Mary).
In response to the relativism and incommensurability thesis, it creates the ideology of translation and conversation by values gathered. The two big ideas give the appropriate response on answering charges on relativism. Kuhn does account for translators who help in the paradigm shift. These translators do recognize paradigm from the different language then translate the worldview of the other opposing models then account for anomalies and provide the appropriate response in the writing of proper paradigm. According to Kuhn, the different set of paradigm in different languages can help solve the problem of the other subsequent paradigm. In my view, the translator helps build upon Kuhn theory of scientific evolution (Hesse, Mary).
On the other hand, the introduction of translators and meta-values to Kuhn theory tends to raise questions of confusion in an argument. Its more evident that the presentation of translators was to eradicate the relativism in his approach. Also, Kuhn ideology of translation provides a different understanding of incommensurability one which comes more efficiently and more persuasive. The only problem on pre-postscript paradigm was that it didn’t eligibly solve the relativism associated with the theory.
Hesse, Mary. “The Structure Of Scientific Revolutions. Thomas S. Kuhn.” Isis, vol 54, no. 2, 1963, pp. 286-287. University Of Chicago Press, doi:10.1086/349717.