Theories as structures: Kuhn’s

paradigms
 Development of sciences
• Science progresses in a spiral form:
Pre-normal Normal Normal Normal
science science science science

Revolutionary
Revolutionary
science
science
 Pre-normal science
• Argument, counter-argument, debate over
fundamentals.
• There is no consensus on relevant
phenomena, conceptual framework, or
methods of investigation
• There are many competing schools of thought,
many theories
 Normal science
• Transition to normal science is called
maturation of the field.
• One of the schools produce an extraordinarily
convincing solutions to some of the
fundamental problems of the field.
• Members of other schools join this school.
 Normal science
• Scientists are in consensus about the
fundamentals of the field, which provides a
framework for research for other scientists.
• With the solutions now the fundamentals of the
field are clear. Further research can built upon
them.
• E.g. Bohr’s Model of Atom
– Describes postivie and negative charges
– Explains emission and absorbtion spectra
– Explains stability of the atom
 Paradigm
• Explicitly stated fundamental laws and
theoretical assumptions (Newton’s mechanics,
Maxwell’s electromagnetism)
• Examplars, standard ways of applying the
fundamental laws to a variety of types of
situation. (e.g. Newtonian paradigm will include
methods of applying Newton’s laws to planetary
motion, pendulums, billiard-ball collisions)
• Instrumentation and instrumental techniques
necessary for bringing the laws of the paradigm
to bear on the real world
 Paradigm
• Some very general, metaphysical principles that
guide work within a paradigm (‘The whole of the
physical world is to be explained as a mechanical
system operating under the influence of various
forces according to the dictates of Newton’s
laws of motion’)
• Some very general methodological prescriptions
such as, ‘Make serious attempts to match
your paradigm with nature’, or ‘Treat failures in
attempts to match a paradigm with nature as
serious problems’
 How scientists learn the paradigm
• Scientists acquire knowledge of a paradigm
through their scientific education by:
• Solving standard problems
• Performing standard experiments
• Doing a piece of research under a supervisor
who is already a skilled practitioner within the
paradigm
 Puzzle solving
• Normal science as a puzzle-solving activity governed by the rules of
a paradigm. The puzzles will be of both of theoretical and
experimental nature.
• Puzzles (crossword, jigsaw, sudoku, chess)
• Quasi-dogmatic: the rules are accepted not questioned
• Rules for solving a puzzle and what a complete solution looks like
• Don’t change the rules of the puzzle.
• An expectation of a solution. If you couldn’t solve it, don’t blame
the puzzle, YOU couldn’t do it.
• Not testing theories or hypothesis, testing the scientists’
competence and ingenuity
• Some puzzles are not solved, these are called anomalies not
falsifications
 Crisis
• The mere existence of unsolved puzzles within a
paradigm does not constitute a crisis. There will
always be anomalies.
• Sometimes the anomalies pile up.
• Some times best scientists attempt and fail some
puzzles.
• Normal scientists begin to engage in
philosophical and metaphysical disputes.
Scientists even begin to express openly their
discontent with and unease over the reigning
paradigm.
 Crisis
• Normal science abandons critical discourse in
favor of puzzle solving
• Critical discourse only happens in the
moments of crisis (extraordinary science)
• Scientists behave like philosophers only when
they must choose between competing
theories.
 Revolutionary science
• The aim is establishing a new framework for
research where normal science is possible
again.
• The new theory must explain everything that
the old did, and solve some of the significant
anomalies
• Like pre-normal science many theories appear
Incommensurability: living in different
worlds
• Each paradigm will regard the world as being
made up of different kinds of things and concepts
(orbits in Bohr’s model wave function in quantum
mechanics)
• Rival paradigms will regard different kinds of
questions as legitimate or meaningful (e.g.
Perihelion of Mercury)
• Paradigms will involve different and
incompatible standards (deterministic vs.
probabilistic interpretations of natural
phenomena)
 Revolution
• The change of allegiance on the part of
individual scientists from one paradigm to an
incompatible alternative is likened by Kuhn to a
‘gestalt switch’ or a ‘religious conversion’.
• There will be no purely logical argument that
demonstrates the superiority of one paradigm
over another and that thereby compels a rational
scientist to make the change.
• Supporters of rival paradigms will not accept each
others’ premises and so will not necessarily be
convinced by each others’ arguments.
 Revolution
• Abandonment of one paradigm and the adoption of a
new one, not by an individual scientist only but by the
scientific community as a whole.
• As more and more individual scientists, are converted
to the new paradigm, there is an ‘increasing shift in
the distribution of professional allegiances’
• If the revolution is to be successful, the majority of
the scientific community is converted, leaving only a
few dissenters.
• These will be excluded from the new scientific
community. In any case, they will eventually die.
 The function of normal science and
revolutions
• It is necessary for the normal scientist to be to a large extent
uncritical. If all scientists were critical of all parts of the framework
in which they worked all of the time then no detailed work would
ever get done.
• If all scientists were and remained normal scientists, a particular
science would become trapped in a single paradigm and would
never progress beyond it.
• All paradigms will be inadequate to some extent as far as their
match with nature is concerned. When the mismatch becomes
serious, when a crisis develops, the revolutionary step of replacing
the entire paradigm with another becomes essential for the
effective progress of science.
• Progress through revolutions is Kuhn’s alternative to the
cumulative progress characteristic of inductivist accounts of
science.
 Criticisms
• Relativist view of scientific progress.
• The question of whether a paradigm is better or
not than one that it challenges does not have a
definitive, neutral answer, but depends on the
values of the individual, group or culture that
makes the judgment
• The nature of science is ‘intrinsically
sociological’ and is to be accomplished by
‘examining the nature of the scientific group,
discovering what it values, what it tolerates and
what it disdains’
 Popper vs. Kuhn: Similarities
• Descriptive (not normative)
– They are both concerned with the dynamic process
(the how question) by which scientific knowledge is
acquired
– They both take facts and spirit of actual scientific life
(not the products)
• Revolutionary view
– Science does not progress by piling up bits of
knowledge
– Revolutionary process an older theory is rejected and
replaced by an incompatible new theory
 Popper vs. Kuhn: Differences
• Kuhn insists about a deep commitment to tradition
• Kuhn says there are at least two types of science
periods: normal science and extraordinary
(revolutionary) science
• But revolutions are rare. We cannot only look at
revolutions to understand science, we must also look
at normal science
• Kuhn rejects falsification: Normally in case of a failure
only the scientist is blamed not his tools.
• Opposes Popper: Theory choice is not purely logical.
• https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O_oDFvk
lkyY
• Demarcation problem
• https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8dmOmp
rI0v4
• Why we should trust scientists
• https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RxyQNEV
OElU