Home / Science

Basic Concepts in the Work “Structure of Scientific Revolutions”


The first stage, lacking a central model, followed by the “normal science” stage, when scientists tried to extend the central model by solving “hard problems”. Following the guidance of this model, normal science is extremely useful: “once this model succeeds, the profession will solve problems that its parts would have been unimaginable and never have done without a commitment to this model”. The third stage, is the period of scientific crisis, anomalies appear and increase in number, which cannot be solved within the framework of the standard model. The standard model is questioned, and divisions among scientists appear. The fourth stage, is the period of scientific revolution, with the appearance of new models, capable of suggesting and solving “anomalies”, new models with strong competitiveness, capable of “challenging” the previous standard model. The final stage is the victory of the new paradigm, and the replacement of the old paradigm with a new problem to solve, the revolution ends, and a new period of normal science opens.

In The Structure of Scientific Revolutions, Kuhn also argued that opposing paradigms are incommensurable – that is, one cannot be understood through the conceptual framework and terminology of the other. According to his critic, David Stove (Popper and After, 1982), this thesis seems to lead to a fundamentally irrational choice theory: if opposing theories are not directly comparable, then no rational or better choice can be made. Although Kuhn's views have produced relativistic results and have been the subject of much debate; he himself denied the charge of relativism in the third edition of The Structure of Scientific Revolutions, and sought to clarify his views in order to avoid misinterpretation. Freeman Dyson quotes Kuhn as saying:


“I am not a Kuhnian” this statement is referred to in the theory of relativity that some philosophers have developed based on their research work.

Maybe you are interested!

The enormous impact of Kuhn's work has been compared to a change in the vocabulary of the philosophy of science: in addition to the “paradigm shift”, Kuhn popularized “paradigm” from a term used in certain forms of linguistics and with the work of Georg Lichtenberg it took on its current broader meaning, forming the term “normal science” referring to the relatively routine work of scientists within a paradigm, and was largely responsible for the use of the term “scientific revolution” in the plural, which is ongoing in different periods and fields, as opposed to the single “scientific revolution” of the late Renaissance. The frequent use of the phrase “paradigm shift” has made many scientists more aware and in many cases more receptive to this paradigm shift, so that Kuhn's analysis of the development of scientific views has influenced the evolutionary process.

Kuhn's work has been widely used in the social sciences; for example, later positivists have argued in international relations. Kuhn is recognized as a founding father behind the sociology of scientific knowledge.

Basic Concepts in the Work “Structure of Scientific Revolutions”

Kuhn's defense of his account of science from The Structure of Scientific Revolutions in relativity can be found in an article by Kuhn called 'objectivity, value-added judgment, and theoretical choice.' In this article, he reiterates the five criteria from the final chapter of 'structure' that determine (or help to determine better) choice in terms of principles:



other.

1.– Accuracy – experience is consistent with experiment and observation. 2.– Conformity – internally and externally consistent with theories


3.– Broad scope – the results of a theory should be extended beyond

its original draft for explanation.

4.– Simple – simple explanation

5.– Effectiveness - a theory should present new phenomena or relationships around them.

He then goes on to raise the issue that, although the criteria above have been determined by choice theory, they are not accurate to reality and are related to the individual scientists. According to Kuhn, “when scientists have to choose between competing theories, they commit themselves to the same set of criteria for choice and yet reach different conclusions.” For this reason, the criteria are not “objective” in the usual sense of the word because each individual scientist reaches different conclusions with the same criteria to evaluate other criteria or even supplement the criteria for other subjective reasons. Kuhn then comes to the conclusion that he would propose that the criteria of choice theory that I have made are not principles for determining choice but rather values ​​that influence it. Because Kuhn uses the history of science in his explanation of science, the criteria or values ​​for choice theory are often understood as descriptive norms (or rather values) of the theory for the scientific community rather than norms in the usual sense of the word “criteria,” despite Kuhn’s various explanations of science. In that view, Kuhn advances by adding new principles to replace old ones, or by increasing the theory of truth, in exceptional cases correcting some errors in the past. This progress can accelerate


in the hands of great scientists, but its progress itself is assured by the scientific method.

Chapter 1 Conclusion

Philosophical doctrines do not appear in a vacuum or as irrational accidents, but all philosophical schools in history are the inevitable and quintessential products of their time, they reflect the characteristics, aspirations, desires, passions, it is the spirit of the era (zeitgeist). Philosophy of science in general and the philosophy of science of Thomas Samuel Kuhn are no exception, Kuhn's philosophy appeared as a necessity before the turbulent realities of America in the 1950s-1970s, and the work "Structure of Scientific Revolutions" is the concrete result of the tireless efforts of the genius Thomas Samuel Kuhn.

The successful birth of “The Structure of Scientific Revolutions” was due to the positive influence of T.Kuhn’s genius, as well as the positive impact of his living and working environment, which was very favorable for his previous scientific works, especially physics, which Kuhn had accumulated during his teaching and research, such as Ptolemy’s geocentric theory, Newtonian mechanics, and breakthrough inventions in the era in which Kuhn lived, such as the theory of relativity and quantum physics. Not only that, Kuhn also selectively absorbed philosophical thoughts of science before him and at the same time as him, such as: Denialism and historicism, relativity of WVQuine, Philosophy of language of Wittgenstein, and Logical atomism of Bertrand Russerl, as the theoretical basis for the birth of his philosophical system, the essence of which is “The Structure of Scientific Revolutions”. “The Structure of Scientific Revolutions” has given us a new perspective worth considering on the movement of science. That is, science does not develop linearly, by steadily accumulating new knowledge, but must go through ever-recurring revolutions.


Chapter 2

BASIC CONTENT OF THOMAS SAMUEL KUHN'S PHILOSOPHICAL VIEW OF SCIENCE IN THE WORK "THE STRUCTURE OF SCIENTIFIC REVOLUTIONS"

2.1. Basic concepts in the work "Structure of Scientific Revolutions"

Regarding the concept of “paradigm”, the original Greek meaning of “paradigm” is “paradeigma”, derived from the verb “para-deiknumi” which means to indicate what lies above, used in Plato’s “Timaeus”. Before Kuhn, linguistics called “paradigm” a verb conjugation system, while Ferdinand de Saussure used it to describe a group of similar elements. The Merriam-Webster online dictionary defines it as a theoretical or philosophical framework, while the Encyclopedia Britannica interprets it as a conceptual world view. Today, paradigm has become a familiar term used by many disciplines.

According to Kuhn, a paradigm “is and is only what the members of a scientific community have in common. Conversely, it is precisely because they have a common “model” that they form that scientific community, although in other respects they have nothing in common” [3, p. 766]. The concept of “paradigm”: Kuhn named famous scientific works such as Aristotle’s “Physica”, Ptolemy’s “Almngest”, Newton’s “Principa” and “Opticks”, Franklin’s “Electricity”, Lavoisier’s “Chemistry”, Lyell’s “Geology”, etc. as “paradigms”, the reason it became a paradigm is because: it is completely unprecedented and does not omit all the issues of interest to that scientific field. It became the “gold standard” for scientists of the time, because it ensured three typical points for scientific knowledge, which are: building an important argumentative basis; harmony between reality and theory; and, the accuracy of principles.


Paradigm theory is the core of Kuhn's philosophy of science, and is also an important content to distinguish Kuhn's philosophy of science from other philosophical schools. The term "paradigm" is considered a difficult term and is understood in many ways by philosophers. According to Masterman, this term is used with at least 22 different meanings. Kuhn explains the polysemy of paradigm, not as Kuhn's fault but because most of those differences are due to stylistic inconsistencies, and those differences can be eliminated relatively easily. Therefore, in the second edition, in the afterword, Kuhn separated the two concepts of "paradigm" from the concept of "scientific community" and interpreted the term paradigm in two different meanings: First, Paradigm is the theoretical foundational knowledge that is widely accepted among leading scientists in a certain scientific field. The theoretical foundations are presented in textbooks of various fields. Secondly, models are standard examples and ways of solving problems.

“Normal Science”, contrary to the popular image of science, Kuhn asserts that: “Normal science does not aim at novelty of facts or theories, and when it is achieved, no one finds it”, “Normal science” is just conducting scientific research according to “patterns” [3, p. 769]. According to Kuhn, normal science, which does not aim at discovering novelties and is not oriented towards its own failures, has few discoveries due to “obscuration of vision”, being confined by the standard model.

Anomalies are understood as new phenomena where the perception and improvement of it goes beyond the limits of the model. The appearance of "anomalies" in science is inevitable, scientific research time and time again continuously discovers new and unexpected phenomena,


and scientists have repeatedly invented radically new theories. Kuhn said: “New facts and theories accidentally appear in a game governed by a certain set of rules, but their adoption requires the construction of another set of rules. Once they have become an integral part of science, scientific activity is never exactly the same again…” [17, p.122]. In fact, anomalies are a compelling force behind the change of doctrine, which does not mean that scientists will follow an unfounded methodology. Kuhn said: Although they must begin to lose faith, and then begin to consider various possibilities, they do not reject the paradigm that led to the crisis, they replace it with a new one.

“Scientific crisis”, the sign of crisis appears when the scientific “paradigm” begins to be surrounded by an ocean of abnormalities, which the standard paradigm itself cannot resolve in all aspects. In the period of normal science, it is capable of assimilating and absorbing many abnormal phenomena, but cannot absorb them all. When abnormalities accumulate more and more and penetrate the core of the paradigm, adjusting and supplementing theories is no longer effective, normal science falls into a dangerous situation, then science enters a period of instability – a period of crisis. In other words, “the meaning of crisis is that it indicates that the opportunity to change tools has come” [3, p. 770]. “Scientific crisis” can be understood as a concept reflecting a scientific reality, at which time the paradigm cannot provide an explanation for new scientific phenomena.

“Scientific revolution” means the transformation and change of paradigm. There is a qualitative difference between the old and new paradigms. Although they are similar in structure, the fundamentals, that is, the scientific theories, laws and basic viewpoints have changed. “Scientific revolution” is essentially the replacement of “paradigms”.


“The old” model is replaced by a “new model”, which is the process by which the scientific community grasps and decodes anomalies, reconstructs scientific concepts, and establishes new cognitive tools. It is to destroy old stereotypes, providing increasing materials for fundamental changes in rules. This is the process of both discarding the old “model” and accepting the new model. “If we only discard the old model without building a new model, we will discard science” [3, p. 771]. The scientific revolution is the unity of destruction and construction, so the scientific revolution is also a change to a more suitable model.

“Scientific community” can be understood as people who master and practice a certain scientific discipline. They have undergone the same education and entered the profession, and during the course of their studies they have absorbed the same theories, techniques, and drawn many of the same lessons. The boundaries of normal science represent the limits of a scientific subject, and each scientific community usually has its own subject. Different types of scientific communities pay attention to different problems, and professional exchanges outside the scope of the group are very difficult, and often lead to misunderstandings.

It can be seen that the system of concepts of philosophy of science in "the structure of scientific revolutions" is relatively new. Explaining the basic concepts in the work is necessary to approach the new understanding of Thomas Samuel Kuhn's philosophy of science.

2.2. The “paradigm” theory, the core of Thomas Samuel Kuhn's philosophy of science

According to Kuhn, mature science goes through different stages between normal science and scientific revolution. For normal science, the important theories, tools, values, metaphysical assumptions including the disciplinary matrix are kept fixed, which has assumed the accumulation of solutions to the puzzle, whereas for scientific revolution and the disciplinary matrix

Comment


Agree Privacy Policy *