If someone who had just read Thomas Kuhn's Structure of Scientific Revolutions came up to you and started talking about it, what would you say to deflate his or her excitement, as a crabby older person? I was thinking, that dominating grant funding games play some role deepening the science but also gumming up the revolutions? Especially in anything related to medicine, which also gets the whammy of body neuroses and extreme profit taking. I guess the critique is that Kuhn sees science too hermetically? How does ActUp's role in advancing HIV research play into it? Example or counter-example?
Stupid hype words in article abstracts seem like the least of our problems. Sort of like how pundits discuss politics. Really angry anti-pundits like in the Washington Monthly used to compare Washington to a tea party or the court at Versailles where the important thing is adhere to conventional wisdom in a form of etiquette and use the right phrases while ignoring the larger issues. But now tea party means something else and breaking the china does not seem so worthy.