Abstract
Abstract This chapter presents a more detailed examination of Thomas Kuhn’s structure than that provided in the Introduction. The chapter explains how and why Kuhn’s book permanently rejected the idea of scientific “progress.” The author notes that although most Catholics experienced the widespread critique of Pope Paul VI’s 1968 encyclical as a sudden (if welcome) rejection of the kind of theological argument that the Church had utilized in its moral teaching for several centuries, the cracks in the foundations of that older approach to natural law had appeared considerably before 1968. The emergence of a historicist approach to moral theology in the decades before the promulgation of the encyclical contextualized the rocky reception accorded it within a much larger historical framework. Further, even the guild of moral theologians had come to a much more nuanced understanding of what could be (and what could not be) “unchangeable” in Christian ethics.
Keywords
EncyclicalPromulgationArgument (complex analysis)PhilosophyHistoricismNatural lawEpistemologyEnvironmental ethicsSociologyClassicsTheologyLawHistoryPolitical science
Related Publications
Updated guidance for trusted systematic reviews: a new edition of the Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions
On a shelf in the sunny, open‐plan office of Cochrane Australia in Melbourne, there's a large, white ring‐binder that, it's fair to say, hasn't been opened in a while. It's a pr...
Habitat, the Templet for Ecological Strategies?
The very etymology of Ecology, from the greek 'Qikos', 'the household', implies that ecologists should devote some attention to the 'house' or habitat of the population or commu...
A Tool for Reviewers
Peer review lies at the core of science and academic life. In one of its most pervasive forms, peer review for the scientific literature is the main mechanism that research jour...
Random Allocation in Observational Data
Conventional observational epidemiology has an unenviable reputation for generating false-positive findings,1,2 or "scares," as others call them.3 In 1993, for example, the New ...
Publication Info
- Year
- 2018
- Type
- book
- Pages
- 33-49
- Citations
- 1971
- Access
- Closed
External Links
Social Impact
Altmetric
PlumX Metrics
Social media, news, blog, policy document mentions
Citation Metrics
1971
OpenAlex
0
Influential
0
CrossRef
Cite This
Mark S. Massa
(2018).
The Structure of Scientific Revolutions.
The Structure of Theological Revolutions
, 33-49.
https://doi.org/10.1093/oso/9780190851408.003.0003
Identifiers
- DOI
- 10.1093/oso/9780190851408.003.0003