Paradigma Dan Rasionalitas: Telaah Kritis Pemikiran Thomas Kuhn Dan Ibnu Rusyd
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.59240/kjsk.v5i3.266Keywords:
Thomas Kuhn, Ibn Rushd, Paradigm, Rationality, Philosophy of ScienceAbstract
This article aims to analyze and compare Thomas Kuhn’s concept of scientific paradigms with Ibn Rushd’s philosophical notion of rationality, while exploring their relevance to the development of contemporary epistemology. The study departs from the assumption that the tension between scientific relativism and objective rationalism lies at the core of methodological problems in modern philosophy of science. Employing a comparative-philosophical approach with textual analysis, this research examines primary sources such as Kuhn’s The Structure of Scientific Revolutions and Ibn Rushd’s Tahafut al-Tahafut and Faṣl al-Maqal supplemented by secondary literature from contemporary scholars. The findings reveal that Kuhn views scientific progress as a revolutionary process shaped by paradigm shifts and scientific community consensus, whereas Ibn Rushd emphasizes universal rationality grounded in the harmony between reason and revelation. Both thinkers share a critical stance against intellectual dogmatism and advocate for the emancipation of reason from oppressive authority. The synthesis of their ideas provides a philosophical foundation for reinforcing scientific rationality based on ethical values, while offering an integrative and contextual framework for reconstructing modern epistemology.
References
Chalmers, A. F. (2013). What is this thing called science? (4th ed.). Indianapolis, IN: Hackett Publishing.
Fakhry, M. (2004). A history of Islamic philosophy (3rd ed.). New York, NY: Columbia University Press.
Fauzan, M. (2020). Rasionalitas Ibnu Rusyd dan relevansinya terhadap pembaruan pemikiran Islam kontemporer. Jurnal Ilmiah Ilmu Ushuluddin, 19(1), 45–60. https://doi.org/10.18592/jiu.v19i1.3412
Fuller, S. (2000). Thomas Kuhn: A philosophical history for our times. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
Gutas, D. (2001). Avicenna and the Aristotelian tradition. Leiden: Brill.
Hoyningen-Huene, P. (1993). Reconstructing scientific revolutions: Thomas S. Kuhn’s philosophy of science. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
Ibnu Rusyd. (1959). Fashl al-maqal fī mā bayna al-ḥikmah wa al-sharī‘ah min al-ittisāl (G. F. Hourani, Ed.). Leiden: Brill.
Ibnu Rusyd. (1961). Averroes: On the harmony of religion and philosophy (G. F. Hourani, Trans.). London: Luzac.
Ibnu Rusyd. (1954). Tahāfut al-tahāfut (S. van den Bergh, Ed., Vol. 1). London: Luzac & Co.
Kuhn, T. S. (1970). The structure of scientific revolutions (2nd ed.). Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
Kuhn, T. S. (2012). The structure of scientific revolutions (4th ed.). Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
Leaman, O. (1988). Averroes and his philosophy. Oxford: Clarendon Press.
Rahayu, N. (2021). Kebebasan akademik dan dinamika epistemologis dalam pendidikan tinggi di Indonesia. Jurnal Filsafat, 31(2), 157–173. https://doi.org/10.22146/jf.66942
Renan, E. (1900). Averroès et l’Averroïsme. Paris: Calmann Lévy.
Taylor, R. C. (2020). Averroes. In E. N. Zalta (Ed.), The Stanford encyclopedia of philosophy (Winter 2020 Edition). Stanford University. https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/averroes/
Hacking, I. (2012). Introduction. In T. S. Kuhn, The structure of scientific revolutions (4th ed., pp. ix–xxii). Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
Downloads
Published
How to Cite
Issue
Section
License
Copyright (c) 2025 L. Ibnurusd Al Hafied, Eka Nurmayanti
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 4.0 International License.
