WILSON REPLIES: Nothing in Steve Fuller’s book persuaded me that Kuhn’s theory was a “bad idea.” My own assessment is that details of Kuhn’s analysis need revision, as stated in the review, but that, overall, Kuhn’s ideas remain of major interest. I found Fuller’s descriptions of the pre-paradigm phases of the philosophy and sociology of science to be his major accomplishment, even if that was not Fuller’s intent.
For me, the most intriguing suggestion in Fuller’s letter is his assertion that, if a paradigm emerges for the philosophy and sociology of science, one consequence would be the exclusion of scientists from these two fields. I agree that he has a serious concern; I disagree that the exclusion is likely to occur. If a paradigm emerges, I expect that initially only a small number of very talented individuals would be able to make much sense of it, just as has been the case with the major paradigms in science that Kuhn discussed in his book The Structure of Scientific Revolutions (U. of Chicago Press, 1962). But I also expect that one or more very talented scientists would be among those individuals, based on the quality of work that scientists such as John Ziman are already producing in the related field of science studies. See, for example, Ziman’s recently published book Real Science (Cambridge U. Press, 2000).
