![]() This can lead to the absurdities and sense of disorder that characterises a crisis. using peer review to block publication) and even claims that the paradigm is becoming more successful. During a crisis there may be attempts to resist change, especially by those strongly associated with the paradigm: an anomaly can be ignored by claiming it was an error or the scientist who identified it was biased or incompetent by direct or tacit coercion to prevent anomalies being reported (e.g. A crisis develops when a paradigms accuracy or usefulness diminishes, or anomalies increase in number or significance that despite effort cannot be addressed by the paradigm. Kuhn claimed that normal science is periodically interrupted by a scientific revolution caused by a crisis in the paradigm. individual solutions to problems, or specific methods and techniques). ![]() In response, in the 2nd edition of the SSR ( 1970), Kuhn distinguished between a broad concept of a paradigm, the disciplinary matrix (aspects that bind a community together including formal theories and definitions), and the narrower concept of the exemplar (e.g. She organised these into three groups: the metaphysical (beliefs, standards, or speculations) the sociological (universally recognised scientific achievements) and the construct (the tools, techniques, methods, or approaches that direct research). Masterman ( 1970) counted 21 uses of the word. Kuhn highlighted how Karl Popper’s falsification method, which is often presented as “the” scientific method, would in its naïve form (Lakatos 1970) leave science in chaos, every error or anomaly leading to hypotheses being rejected.ĭespite being a key aspect of the SSR, Kuhn’s definition of a paradigm was initially unclear. Kuhn’s outline of paradigms led to claims that he was a relativist, but he did not see normal science as negative or irrational, but as necessary to allow scientists to work and communicate effectively. ![]() The special theory of relativity was not rejected following this announcement, commitment to the paradigm ensuring that the anomalous result was greeted with caution and found to be in error. A recent example is the CERN announcement that neutrinos exceeded the speed of light (OPERA collaboration 2012). Kuhn used the failure of the Newtonian paradigm to explain the anomalous orbit of Uranus to illustrate how this commitment can address anomalies: rather than claim an error in the Newtonian paradigm, Le Verrier and Adams independently predicted that an unknown planet must influence Uranus’s orbit, ultimately leading to the discovery of Neptune. However, this can be difficult, and requires commitment to the paradigm. Under a paradigm the expectation is that anomalies will eventually be reconciled with the paradigm. Kuhn claimed that competence in finding solutions that fit with a paradigm determines an individual’s scientific credibility.Ī scientist also has to reconcile anomalies, aspects that don’t seem to fit with the paradigm. The paradigm guarantees solutions to these puzzles, but it takes effort and ingenuity to find them. A paradigm is incomplete, its gaps providing the “puzzles” that occupy “normal science”, the questions asked and the work done under a paradigm. A paradigm develops from a pre-paradigm state that lacks a dominant idea, and once established provides the knowledge learnt during scientific training. This resembled the earlier “thought collective” of Ludwik Fleck (see Fleck 1979), the mutual ideas that determine the “thought style” of researchers, and Abraham Maslow’s “means-centred” science, the tools and techniques learnt during a scientific education (Maslow 1946). Kuhn claimed that the science practiced by a field was governed by a paradigm. Kuhn said that science offered a narrow and rigid education “probably more so than any other except perhaps in orthodox theology”. This views science as something practiced, where disciplined minds learn the rules and habits of a field. Kuhn also claimed that scientists learn by immersive training, getting what Michael Polanyi called “tacit knowledge” (Polanyi 1966). the view that most scientists would promote). textbooks, reviews) are hindsight revisions (see also Medawar 1964), which give the impression of a logical and cumulative progression towards truth (i.e. Kuhn suggested that most accounts of science (e.g. However, it is unlikely that many scientists would consider themselves “Kuhnian”. ![]() The SSR introduced several terms, principally “paradigm” and “paradigm shift” that are used routinely by scientists. ![]() In “The Structure of Scientific Revolutions” (SSR Kuhn 1962), Thomas Kuhn outlined his view of how science was done, rather than how it should be done. ![]()
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |