Open Access Peer-reviewed Commentary

Our intellectual children: Kuhnian Ants or Feyerabendian Questioners?

Main Article Content

David Trafimow corresponding author


The philosophies of Kuhn and Feyerabend not only imply different ways to perform science, they also imply different ways to teach science, particularly at the graduate level. I am especially concerned about teaching at the graduate level in my area of psychology but the argument likely could be generalized outside of psychology. In essence, I argue that teaching graduate level psychology modeled after Feyerabend is better than that modeled after Kuhn.

Kuhn, normal science, Feyerabend, Questioner

Article Details

How to Cite
Trafimow, D. (2020). Our intellectual children: Kuhnian Ants or Feyerabendian Questioners?. Advances in Educational Research and Evaluation, 1(2), 88-92.


  1. Briskman LB. Is a Kuhnian Analysis Applicable To Psychology? Social Studies of Science, 1972, 2(1): 87-97.
  2. Weimer WB and Palermo DS. Paradigms and Normal Science in Psychology. Social Studies of Science, 1973, 3(3): 211-244.
  3. Forrester J. On Kuhn’s Case: Psychoanalysis and the Paradigm. Critical Inquiry, 2007, 33(4): 782-819.
  4. Irez S and Han C. Educational reforms as paradigm shifts: Utilizing Kuhnian lenses for a better understanding of the meaning of, and resistance to, educational change. International Journal of Environmental & ence Education, 2011, 3(6): 251-266.
  5. Gustafsson K and Hagstr¨om L. what is the point? teaching graduate students how to construct political science research puzzles. European Political Science, 2018, 17(4): 634-648.
  6. Gawronski B and Bodenhausen G. Theory and Explanation in Social Psychology. Guilford Press, 2015.
  7. Kuhn TS. The structure of scientific revolutions. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1962.
  8. Feyerabend P. Against method: Outline of an anarchistic theory of knowledge. Atlantic Highlands, NJ: Humanities Press, 1975.
  9. Feyerabend P. Against method (3rd Edition). London: Verso, 1993.
  10. Popper KR. Normal science and its dangers. In Imre Lakatos and Alan Musgrave (Eds.), Criticism and the growth of knowledge (Vol 4, pp. 51-58), Cambridge, Cambridge University Press, 1970.
  11. Godfrey-Smith P. Theory and reality: An introduction to the philosophy of science. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press, 2003.
  12. Harris ME. The notion of papal monarchy in the thirteenth century: the idea of paradigm in church history. Lewiston NY: Edwin Mellen Press, 2010.
  13. Mehta G. The Structure of the Keynesian Revolution, London: Martin Robertson, 1977.
  14. Ryan A. Paradigms lost: How Oxford escaped the paradigm wars of the 1960s and 1970s. In C. Hood, D. King, and G. Peele (Eds.), Forging a discipline (pp. 86-103). Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press, 2014.
  15. Lakatos I. The methodology of scientific research programmes. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press, 1978.
  16. Trafimow D. The Theory of Reasoned Action: A Case Study of Falsification in Psychology. Theory & Psychology, 2009, 19(4): 501-518.
  17. Trafimow D. The role of auxiliary assumptions for the validity of manipulations and measures. Theory & Psychology, 2012, 22(4): 486-498.
  18. Trafimow D and Rice S. The role of auxiliary assumptions in the falsification of ergonomics theories. Theoretical Issues in Ergonomics Science, 2010, 12(12): 220-229.
  19. Hickey TJ. Understanding Feyerabend on Galileo. Irish Theological Quarterly, 2009, 74(1): 89-92.
  20. Oberheim E. Feyerabend’s Philosophy. Berlin, Germany: Walter de Gruyter GmbH & Co., 2006.
  21. DurantW. The reformation. New York: Simon and Schuster, 1957.
  22. Agnew NM and Pyke SW. The science game: An introduction to research in the behavioral and social sciences. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press, 2007.