The objection raised by Davidson against Kuhn in article 'On the Very Idea of Conceptual Scheme' that the argument presented in 'The Structure of Scientific Revolution' was inconsistent is incorrect. Kuhn's conception belongs to psychology and sociology and his work could be titled 'An Outline of Psychology and Sociology of Scientific Research'. Consequently he is interested only and only in psychological reasons that affect scientists' theoretical decisions. E.g. his considerations concerning neutral observational language are polemic against thesis that language like that could be somehow useful for interpretation of what scientists do and also against thesis that it could be useful for scientists themselves. The difficulty of understanding above paradigmata does not consist on conceptual schemata meant logically as Davidson reads it but on different cognitive attitude and different manual sets of concepts. To explain the controversy logical and psychological concepts of meaning are distinguished. Davidson means the proper, Kuhn does the latter. Psychological meaning consists on what associations and feelings are evoked by utterances in the receiver's mind. When Kuhn says that after a revolution scientists live in another world he means only that the language with which they describe the reality has different psychological meaning. And this is that kind of meaning that cannot be translated and is lost when you discuss above paradigmata. From Kuhn's point of view it is possible to translate logical meanig of scientific utterances from before a revolution, and he does it. The psychological meaning can be only described but not translated.
Financed by the National Centre for Research and Development under grant No. SP/I/1/77065/10 by the strategic scientific research and experimental development program:
SYNAT - “Interdisciplinary System for Interactive Scientific and Scientific-Technical Information”.