This brief story will occupy with the boarding of the philosophy of the science presented for Thomas Samuel Kuhn, in particular way analyzing the structure of the paradigm change. Before any another commentary if it makes necessary to point some biographical data regarding the author. The author integrates a group of epistemolgicos thinkers, after Popper, that he searchs to base a new image of science or a new theory of science. He is born in the year of 1922, the city of Cincinatti, the United States, and comes to falecer in 1996, Cambridge cancer victim. Kaihan Krippendorff may not feel the same. One becomes known for its contribution the change of if thinking philosophy and scientific sociology internationally.

He has its ideas you influence for the texts of the doctor and Polish biologist Ludwick Fleck whom he writes on philosophy of science, creating in the decade of 1930 the concept of collective thought. Further details can be found at Vlad Doronin, an internet resource. Fleck is considered the precursor of the paradigm notion. Coming back toward Kuhn, in the year of 1943, it is formed in physics for the university of Harvard. For the same university it receives the degree from mestrado in 1946 three years later, 1949, of doutorado. Among the published workmanships and articles if they detach the copernicana Revolution in 1959. In 1962 it publishes the book Structures of the Scientific Revolutions where it defends this new boarding of science. The workmanship of the author weaves, in certain degree, critical to the thought of Popper proposal in the thesis of the falseamento published in 1959, intitled the logic of the scientific research. The author suffers accusations from irracionalismo, and writes, in 1974, a called assay Reconsidering the paradigms and, then later, he publishes another book, Theory of the black body and quantum discontinuity: 1894-1912, in the year of 1979. Still of the author, Essenciall Tension of 1977 and the way since the structure: philosophical assays 1970-1993, published in 1995.

Ockham also judges unfounded this position. It does not have nothing in the writing that can make to think about a direct intervention of God when a community of men chooses or delegates a person to exert the command (cf. GHISALBERTI, 1997, P. 286-287). For such Ockham shock of the disgnostic following o: such human power to constitute authority itself exactly was explicitou when the necessity appeared of the authority, that is, when the institution of the civil power showed to be the only possible way to guarantee the development pacific and commanded of the convivncia human being (GUISALBERTI, 1997, P. 287). Resumidamente what Ockham wants to say is that the man competes at the rate of the duty of dividuar the convenience to institute the authority, but was God who gave to the man the reason to look the things necessary and useful to live in commanded and pacific way.

In last analysis, it will have to be said that institution of the authority as the one of the private property, while determined for the reason, drift of God, but only in indirect way (GHISALBERTI, 1997, P. 287). the proper Ockham leaves to be transparent in ‘ ‘ Dialogus’ ‘ that the creation of an authority would not be indispensable that regulated the development pacific and commanded of the convivncia human being, when such convivncia happened between people dominated for the reason and not for the passions. In fact, the nature creates all the equal men. Nobody can be boasted of, for proper initiative, to have to be able on a fellow creature. Moreover, we see that the main duty of who is constituted as authority is of refrear and punishing the evildoers, what it brings as consequence that in a community of perfect men the authority is superfluous.