“The duck-rabbit figure illustrates a change in perceptual organisation.”
— Thomas KuhnCommentary on The Structure of Scientific Revolutions (1962), chapter X, Revolutions as Changes of World View; paraphrase, not a direct quotation
Commentary
Kuhn uses the duck-rabbit image to illuminate how a single visual figure can be perceived in different ways without a corresponding change in the stimulus itself. The analogy helps explain his claim that scientists working within different paradigms may organise observations through different conceptual expectations. What counts as a relevant object, a significant problem or an intelligible explanation can change alongside the framework through which evidence is interpreted. Nevertheless, the example has limits. Scientific paradigms are not merely alternative visual interpretations, and the analogy alone does not demonstrate that rival theories are equally justified or that the external world is created by perception. Its role is explanatory: it makes the possibility of a substantial change in scientific understanding easier to grasp. The distinction between an illustrative analogy and a complete argument should remain explicit.
Commentary
Kuhn uses the duck-rabbit image to illuminate how a single visual figure can be perceived in different ways without a corresponding change in the stimulus itself. The analogy helps explain his claim that scientists working within different paradigms may organise observations through different conceptual expectations. What counts as a relevant object, a significant problem or an intelligible explanation can change alongside the framework through which evidence is interpreted. Nevertheless, the example has limits. Scientific paradigms are not merely alternative visual interpretations, and the analogy alone does not demonstrate that rival theories are equally justified or that the external world is created by perception. Its role is explanatory: it makes the possibility of a substantial change in scientific understanding easier to grasp. The distinction between an illustrative analogy and a complete argument should remain explicit.