Models of scientific community: Charles Sanders Peirce to Thomas Kuhn

Scientific community' is common currency in the study of science, largely due to Kuhn's use of the term in his highly influential book The Structure of Scientific Revolutions. As this article explains, however, 'scientific community' was not of Kuhn's coining. It was hinted at by Peirce, and expressly designated by Royce. On a few occasions Fleck affirmed a scientific community, while Polanyi studied it in some detail. The article concludes by comparing these thinkers' 'communitarian' interpretations of science.

Colonial designs: Thomas Karsten and the planning of urban Indonesia

Thomas Karsten (1885 – 1945) is undoubtedly a major figure in the history of architecture and town planning in Indonesia. Between 1915 and 1941 he was involved in town planning in 12 of the 19 municipalities and towns in Java (the most prominent exception being Surabaya) 3 of the 9 towns in Sumatra, and the only town in Borneo This paper does not attempts to investigate or question his importance in this field but to place his architectural and town planning ideas in the context of his broader politico-cultural ideas and activities in the Dutch East Indies between 1914 and 1942, and these, in turn, in the context of an evolving colonialism and colonial discourse.

Michael Polanyi and Thomas Kuhn: priority and credit

The article argues that Polanyi was a likely source of influence on the theory of science that Kuhn developed in his The Structure of Scientific Revolutions (1962). The striking similarity between Kuhn’s idea of incommensurability and Polanyi’s rendering of scientific controversy in Personal Knowledge is featured here, and is used to expose a tension between Polanyi’s notions of scientific controversy and unfolding truth.

Alarmed, but not alert in the "war on terror"? The High Court, Thomas V Mowbray and the Defence Power

The article examines the judgment in Thomas v. Mowbray by the High Court in Australia handed down during the so called 'War on Terror'. According to the author, (i) the High Court de-emphasized the importance of the difference between war and peace in fixing the scope of the defence power in the Australian Constitution in a manner which was inconsistent with its earlier celebrated decision in the Communist Party Case in 1950 during the Cold War; and (ii) failed to apply a sufficiently rigorous test of proportionality in characterising the impugned Commonwealth laws. The article discuss the legal background and social implications of the High Court's decision, using the Communist Party Case in 1950 as a point of comparison.