Turgay OZKAN Week 3

The Structure of Scientific Revolutions _ Thomas S. Kuhn 1. Introduction: A role for History Kuhn argues that older history of science approach is problematic. According to Kuhn, textbooks mislead because their intentions are persuasive and pedagogic not historical, reduce content of science to observations, laws and theories, and scientific development appears as piecemeal accumulation of discoveries and inventions. Historiographic revolution in study of science, historians do not see scientific development as cumulative, assess older theories in context of historical integrity of own time, gives historical opinions maximum internal coherence and evaluates discarded scientific theories versus beliefs of contemporaries. Kuhn contends that history reveals insufficiency of methodological directives to dictate scientific belief. He also opposes that arbitrary factors cause scientific belief but normal science assumes scientific community knows what the world is like and normal science doesnt explain major revolutions in scientific belief. Kuhn argues that scientific revolutions involve rejection of one time honored theory in favor of opponent. Every revolution creates a shift with respect to standards for what is an acceptable or significant problem and standards for an acceptable solution. Besides, scientific imagination transformed the world. 2. The route to Normal Science: Kuhn defines paradigms as a term that relates closely to normal science. Paradigms are some accepted examples of actual scientific practiceexamples which include law, theory, application, and instrumentation together provide models from which spring particular coherent traditions of scientific research. In addition, they are successful scientific achievements and represent a world-view. Pre-paradigm period characterized by number of competing schools; books, published by researchers, starting from first principles; publication addressed to general educated public and phenomena are described private. After a first paradigm has appeared scientific work is characterized by disappearance of rival schools, researchers publish articles supposing significant previous knowledge, addresses audience of professional experts, appearance of specialist journals, establishment of academic departments and institutes, appearance of professional associations and organizations. 3. The Nature of Normal Science Kuhn defines normal science as an approval of a common paradigm by a community. Paradigm has already succeeded in solving number of serious problems, and shows promise of success for further problem solving.
1

Turgay OZKAN Week 3

According to Kuhn, there are only three foci of normal scientific research. a) Defining significant (connected with paradigm) fact b) "comparing" fact with theory c) fact gathering activities -articulation 4. Normal Science as Puzzle-solving Kuhn describes normal science as puzzle solving. A puzzle differs from a problem because it is supposed to have a solution. This solution must be attainable and acceptable only by subsequent rules. Work in normal science is like puzzle solving because paradigm assures that there is a solution, paradigm has "rules" limiting acceptable solution. 5. The Priority of Paradigms: In Wittgenstein's concept of "family resemblance", meaning is identified with use in a language. There is no one precise use; different uses can be for different purposes. Different uses are like different moves in different games. There is no set of characteristic as common essence. "family" resemblances are crisscrossing of a variety of shared characters. Paradigms rather than rules actually guide research because discovering the rules that have guided particular normal-scientific traditions is difficult, scientists learn theory through its application to successful puzzle solutions of past, scientists are never able to abstract out rules of research, normal science can do without rules, paradigm shifts affect only members of specialty concerned with that application. 6. Anomaly and the Emergence of Scientific Discoveries: The aim of normal science is puzzle solving after the paradigm, does not look to discover unexpected phenomena; nevertheless, normal scientific research is a good way to do so. This is surprising, so we ask why it happens this way. 7. Crisis and the Emergence of Scientific Theories: Awareness of anomaly is a prelude to theory change. Normal science uses theory to solve puzzles so, it does not target discovery of theoretical discoveries as long as puzzle-solving proceeding normally theoretical innovations resisted. 8. The Response to Crisis: How do scientists confront the choice to shift paradigms? 1. Once a science is mature, research is impossible without a paradigm. 2. Once a decision is accepted to reject one paradigm, simultaneously another decision should be admitted. What converts the scientist from seeing an unsolved puzzle to seeing an anomaly? 1. Sometimes external pressure is needed to solve the puzzle because it inhibits further
2

Turgay OZKAN Week 3

articulation of paradigm and puzzle solving and some such puzzles may have technological or social interest. 2. Sometimes failure to solve calls into question fundamentals of paradigm. 3. Probably no one general reason is occurred; many different engines drive scientific change How do crises end? Only three possibilities: 1. The crisis-provoking anomaly is solved by the reigning paradigm a) despair of crisis state was premature b) revolution aborted 2. The crisis-provoking anomaly is considered unsolvable at current time a) attention turns to other problems b) the unsolved puzzle is labeled, and c) "shelved" for future generations 3. A new theory solves the anomaly a) more and more scientists begin to use new theory b) they begin to operate on the paradigm of the new theory c) eventually the majority of the community converts 9. The Nature and Necessity of Scientific Revolutions Why must paradigm change "reflect destructively" on prior paradigm? It could be just cumulative change but it must be destructive of old.