by Thomas S. Kuhn
Chapter 1 - Introduction: A Role for History
In total there is 1 user online :: 0 registered, 0 hidden and 1 guest (based on users active over the past 60 minutes)
Most users ever online was 871 on Fri Apr 19, 2024 12:00 am
This first chapter contains a lot that can be usefully explored to consider Kuhn's general hypothesis of paradigms as a psycho-political model of conceptual change. These first comments about the rigid nature of normal science help to illustrate the psychological dimension. Scientists naturally scoff at ideas that lack evidence. The nature of thought means that scientists naturally elide from the observation that unproven assertions do not predict anything to the claim that unproven assertions are false. This is probably fair enough.Interbane wrote:From http://des.emory.edu/mfp/Kuhn.html
Kuhn begins by formulating some assumptions that lay the foundation for subsequent discussion and by briefly outlining the key contentions of the book.
A) A scientific community cannot practice its trade without some set of received beliefs (p. 4).
1. These beliefs form the foundation of the "educational initiation that prepares and licenses the student for professional practice" (5).
2. The nature of the "rigorous and rigid" preparation helps ensure that the received beliefs exert a "deep hold" on the student's mind.
This point introduces a key idea, the concept of world. Scientists consider the concept of world to be self-evident, understood as objective reality. However, world is also a subjective concept, understood as a framework of meaning. A question here is the legitimacy of unscientific concepts of world. It may be that science is necessary to explain the world, but it is far from clear that science is sufficient to explain the world.B) Normal science "is predicated on the assumption that the scientific community knows what the world is like" (5)—scientists take great pains to defend that assumption.
I'm really unsure about the status of this claim. Normal science suppresses most novelty because it is wrong. If novel ideas are true, they face immense burden of proof. While an existing paradigm works, ideas that would dismantle its basic assumptions really have to demonstrate superior explanatory power.C) To this end, "normal science often suppresses fundamental novelties because they are necessarily subversive of its basic commitments" (5).
The point here is that resources are not provided for research that questions existing conceptual boxes. This theme reminds me of the old Chinese concept of the mandate of heaven, as the basis of regime legitimacy. While an emperor has the mandate of heaven, he has absolute power to dispose of all resources. Similarly, existing conceptual boxes control all research resources, and anyone who questions these boxes excludes themselves from normal scientific career.D) Research is "a strenuous and devoted attempt to force nature into the conceptual boxes supplied by professional education" (5).
As noted with the example of Christianity, this applies equally to non-scientific topics. It is likely that we can see such shift in assumptions in other fields including economics, anthropology and history.E) A shift in professional commitments to shared assumptions takes place when an anomaly "subverts the existing tradition of scientific practice"
This idea of a transformed world is analogous to the Biblical concept of 'a new heaven and new earth'. Galileo and Darwin most certainly transformed the European world.(6). These shifts are what Kuhn describes as scientific revolutions—"the tradition-shattering complements to the tradition-bound activity of normal science" (6).
1. New assumptions (paradigms/theories) require the reconstruction of prior assumptions and the reevaluation of prior facts. This is difficult and time consuming. It is also strongly resisted by the established community.
2. When a shift takes place, "a scientist's world is qualitatively transformed [and] quantitatively enriched by fundamental novelties of either fact or theory" (7).
My understanding is that the only new paradigm possibility is String Theory, which would include a quantum theory of gravity.There have been no real paradigm shifts as far as I am aware within physics since Einstein. The great expansion of knowledge over the last century has occurred in a framework of stable fundamental concepts. Even areas of dispute, such as the cosmological constant, the uncertainty principle, and the nature of dark matter and dark energy, do not suggest that Einstein's fundamental discovery of the relation between space, time and mass might be incorrect.
That's a great comment...,It may be that science is necessary to explain the world, but it is far from clear that science is sufficient to explain the world.
A paradigm shift is truly revolutionary. I agree that science is qualitatively enriched as a result. These revolutions are accomplished almost always, I'd say, by "rebels" who leave behind the norms, definitions, values, etc of the current institution. The herd mentality of the institution can ultimately be detrimental to progress.This idea of a transformed world is analogous to the Biblical concept of 'a new heaven and new earth'. Galileo and Darwin most certainly transformed the European world
Actually, there were two major paradigm shifts in the early 20th century: relativity and quantum mechanics. While a lot has happened in physics since then, nothing that revolutionary has occurred.Robert Tulip wrote:
As far as physics is concerned, I wonder if Kuhn is like a general preparing to fight the last war? There have been no real paradigm shifts as far as I am aware within physics since Einstein.