BETWEEN THE EUREKA MOMENT AND PEER REVIEW:

A DISCUSSION ON THE CONTEXT OF DISCOVERY AND OBJECTIVITY IN POPPER AND KUHN

Abstract

Starting from the anecdote about Edison and the supposed "discovery" of the light bulb, the text problematizes the view that scientific discoveries result from "eureka!" moments, arguing that such episodes only become intelligible considering previously established theoretical and practical traditions. This problematization guides the analysis of the distinction between the context of discovery and the context of justification in Karl Popper and Thomas Kuhn, as well as its implications for scientific objectivity and for a sociological understanding of science. In Popper's case, it is noteworthy that the logic of research focuses exclusively on the context of justification, relegating discovery to the psychological and non-logical realm. Although Popper conceives of science as an endeavour guided by conjectures, refutations and verisimilitude, this approach neglects the role of pre-existing theories in the formulation of new hypotheses and the rarity of radical revolutions in actual scientific practice. In contrast, Kuhn emphasizes the centrality of historical, community, and perceptual aspects, re-framing the problem of objectivity and challenging the Popperian model. Although frequently associated with relativism, Kuhn proposes non-arbitrary criteria for theoretical choice and a conception of science that, while socially situated, maintains the notion of progress. I conclude by suggesting that contemporary approaches, such as that of Helen Longino, allow us to understand objectivity as a product of the social practices of the scientific community, avoiding both Popperian psychologism and the relativism attributed to Kuhn.