Medicine Studies

, Volume 2, Issue 4, pp 245–263 | Cite as

Kuhnian Paradigms: On Meaning and Communication Breakdown in Medicine



In this paper, I enquire whether there are Kuhnian paradigms in medicine, by way of analysing a case study from the history of medicine—the discovery of the germ theory of disease in the nineteenth century. I investigate the Kuhnian aspects of this event by comparing the work of the famous school of microbiology founded by Robert Koch with a rival school, powerful in the nineteenth century, but now almost forgotten, founded by Carl Nageli. Through my case study, I show that medical science possesses some Kuhnian features. Within each school, scientists used similar exemplars and shared the same assumptions. Moreover, their research was resistant to novelty, and the results of one party were disregarded by the other. In other words, in a moderate sense, the Koch and Nageli groups worked within distinct paradigms. However, I reject the stronger Kuhnian claim that the terms used within the two paradigms were mutually unintelligible. Focusing on the semantic aspects, I argue that no account of incommensurability of reference can be given in this case, although, for sociological reasons, the two parties talked past each other. I suggest in addition that the rival scientists could have understood each other more easily if their theoretical commitments had not been so deeply ingrained, and I use the example of Pasteur to indicate that the causal account of meaning might have avoided the communication breakdown.


Germ theory Infectious disease Paradigms Kuhn Fleck Incommensurability Koch Pasteur Nageli 


  1. Andersen, H., Barker, P., and Chen, X. 2006. The cognitive structure of scientific revolutions. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Bird, A. 2004. Kuhn on reference and essence. Philosophia Scientiae 8:39–71. Accessed 12 April 2011.Google Scholar
  3. Bird, A. 2000. Thomas Kuhn. Acumen.Google Scholar
  4. Bird, A. 2002. What is in a Paradigm?. Richmond Journal of Philosophy 1(ii): 11–20. Accessed 02 March 2010.Google Scholar
  5. Brock, T. 1999. Robert Koch: a life in medicine and bacteriology. USA: American Society of Microbiology Press.Google Scholar
  6. Brown, J. 1998. Natural kind terms and recognitional capacities. Mind 107(426): 275–303.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Carter, K.C. 1985. Koch’s postulates in relation to the work of Jacob Henle and Edwin Klebs. Medical History 29: 353–375.Google Scholar
  8. Cohn, F. 1854. Ueber Pilze als Ursache von Thierkrankheiten. Jahres Ber. der Schles. Ges. f. Vaterl. Cult. 32: 43–48Google Scholar
  9. Cohn, F. 1875. Untersuchung uber bacterien. Beitrage z. Biol. d. Pfanzen 1: 127–222.Google Scholar
  10. Debre, P. 2000. Louis Pasteur. Baltimore: John Hopkins University Press.Google Scholar
  11. Devitt, M. 2001. Incommensurability and the priority of metaphysics. In Incommensurability and related matters, eds. P. Hoyningen-Huene and H. Sankey, 143–157. Kluwer Academic Publishers. Accessed 08 October 2010.
  12. Devitt, M. 1995. Meanings just ain’t in the head. In Method, reason and language: Essays in honour of Hilary Putnam George Boolos, 79–104. Cambridge University Press. Accessed 09 September 2010.
  13. Fleck, L. 1981. Genesis and Development of a Scientific Fact. University of Chicago Press (originally published as Fleck 1935, Ent-stehung und Entwicklung einer wissenschaftlichen Tatsache; Einfrung in die Lehre vom Denkstil und Denkkolektiv. Benno Schwabe&Co).Google Scholar
  14. Fuller, S. 2001. Thomas Kuhn: a Philosophical history for our times. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  15. Geison, G. 1995. The private science of Louis Pasteur. Princeton: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
  16. Gradmann, C. 2000. Invisible enemies: Bacteriology and the language of politics in imperial Germany. Science in Context 13: 9–30.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Gradmann, C. 2004. A harmony of illusions: Clinical and experimental testing of Robert Koch’ tuberculin 1890–1900. Stud. Hist. Phil. Biol.&Biomed. Sci 35: 465–481.Google Scholar
  18. Gradmann, C. 2005. Krankheit im labor. Robert Koch und die medizinische Bakteriologie. Göttingen: Wallstein-Verlag.Google Scholar
  19. Gradmann, C. 2006. Robert Koch and the white death: From tuberculosis to tuberculin. Microbes and Infection 8: 294–301.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Hoyningen-Huene, P. 1993. Reconstructing scientific revolutions: Thomas S. Kuhn’s philosophy of science. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  21. Koch, R. 1880 Investigations into the etiology of traumatic infective diseases, W.W. Cheyne transl. The New Sydenham Society, Vol. LXXXVIII (originally published as Koch, R.(1878) Untersuchungen über die Aetiologie der Wundinfectionskrankheiten. Leipzig). Last Accessed 09 April 2011.
  22. Koch R. 1890. A further communication on a cure for tuberculosis (special cable dispatch). Medical News LVII(20). Accessed 10 April 2011.
  23. Kuhn, T. 1961. The structure of scientific revolutions. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  24. Kuhn, T. 2002. The road since structure: Philosophical essays, 1970–1993. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  25. Latour, B., and S. Woolgar. 1986. Laboratory life: The construction of scientific facts. Princeton: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
  26. Lovejoy, A. 1936. The great chain of being: A study of the history of an idea. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  27. Mazumdar, P. 1995. Species and specificity: An interpretation of the history of immunology. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  28. Mellor, D.H. 1977. Natural kinds. The British Journal for the Philosophy of Science 28(4): 299–312.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Mendelsohn, A. 2005. Message in a bottle: The business of vaccines and the nature of heredity after 1880. In A cultural history of heredity III: 19th and early 20th centuries. Max Planck Institute for the History of Science. Accessed 10 April 2011
  30. Millikan, R. 2000. On clear and confused ideas: An essay about substance concepts. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Munch, R. 2003. Review: on the shoulders of giants. Microbes and Infection 5(1): 69–74.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Nageli, C. 1884. Mechanische-physiologische Theorie der Abstammungslehre. Munich: Oldenburg. Google Scholar
  33. Nageli, C. 1877. Die niederen Pilze in ihren Beziehungen zu den Infektionskrankheiten und der Gesundheitspflege. Munich: Oldenburg. Google Scholar
  34. Newton-Smith, W.H. 1981. The rationality of science. London: Routledge & Kegan Paul.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Oppenheimer, G., and E. Susser. 2007. The context and challenge of von Pettenkofer’s, contributions to epidemiology. American Journal of Epidemiology 166: 1239–1241.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Putnam, H. (1973). Meaning and reference. The Journal of Philosophy 70(19) Philosophical Association Eastern Division. (Nov. 8,), pp. 699–711.Google Scholar
  37. Robbins, L. 2001. Louis Pasteur: And the hidden world of microbes. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  38. Salle, A.J. 2007. Fundamental principles of bacteriology. New York: McGraw-Hill.Google Scholar
  39. Silverstein, A. 1996. Specificity: Its nature and significance. Quarterly Review of Biology 71(4): 549–552.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Soames, S. 2005. Reference and description: The case against two-dimensionalism. Princeton: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
  41. Strick, J. 2002. Sparks of life: Darwinism and the Victorian debates over spontaneous generation. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  42. Thagard, P. 1994. The concept of disease. Accessed 09 September 2010.
  43. Waller, J. 2004. Leaps in the dark—the forging of scientific reputations. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2011

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Philosophy Department, Furness CollegeLancaster UniversityLancasterUK

Personalised recommendations