Introduction
The scientific revolution started in the 16th and 17th century with development of the scientific theories (Hatch, n.d.). These Scientific theories are detailed explanation of some aspect of the natural world, based on knowledge that has been repeatedly duplicated through observation and experimental procedures. The understanding or the attempt to understand the human’s perspective of the world through scientific theories is the birth to the philosophy of science (Okasha, 2002). Several perspectives of scientific theories have been postulated by many on the history and philosophy of science. One of such is the Kuhn theory of science development postulated by Thomas Kuhn. His theory brought about a new perspective where scientific theories are placed in an umbrella of a grand theory called the paradigm. Thomas Kuhn who was born in 1922 in Cincinnati, studied physics at Harvard, graduating summa cum laude in 1943, applied his knowledge of quantum physics to humanities of science developing the Kuhn theory of science development (Bird, 2012). Although, earlier perspective of the process for the development of science is based on the ideology of linear cumulative addition to existing theory, the focus of this essay will on Kuhn’s view of process of science development; where normal science undergoes a periodic Paradigm shift as a result the questionable accumulation of anomalies (Okasha, 2002). This essay will give a brief analysis of the Kuhn theory of scientific development, also discussing the strength as applied to social sciences as well as its weaknesses in biological sciences; which is centered on the argument of incommensurability and paradigm replacement.
Kuhn’s paradigm and paradigm shift
According to Kuhn, ...
... middle of paper ...
...d. New York: W.W. Norton.
Feyerabend, P. K. (2000). Explanation, Reduction and Empiricism. In: L. Sklar, ed. Philosophy of science: A collection of Essay. New York: Garland Publishing, pp. 88-102.
Hatch, R. A. (n.d). The Scientific Revolution. [Online]
Available at: http://web.clas.ufl.edu/users/ufhatch/pages/03-Sci-Rev/SCI-REV-Teaching/03sr-definition-concept.htm[Accessed 23 February 2014].
Kuhn, T. S. (1996). The Structure of Scientific Revolutions. 3rd ed. Chicago: Chicago University Press.
Kuhn, T. S. (1961). The Function of Measurement in Modern Physical Science. ISIS, Volume 52, pp. 161-193.
Mayr, E. (2006). The Advance of Science and Scientific Revolutions.. Journal of the History of the Behavioral Science, 30(4), pp. 328-334.
Oberheim, . E. & Hoyningen-Huene, P. (2012). The Incommensurability of Scientific Theories. The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy.
Directions: Read the essay entitled The Scientific Revolution: The Disenchanting of the Universe and respond to each of the following questions as thoroughly as possible. Your answers can be either hand-written (in ink) or word-processed. However, you must paraphrase—answer in your own words. If you quote directly from the essay, you should then interpret the quote.
D. Brett King, Wayne Viney, & William Douglas Woody, (2013). A History of Psychology, Ideas & Context. 3rd ed. United States: Pearson.
Messenger, E., Gooch, J., & Seyler, D. U. (2011). Arguing About Science. Argument! (pp. 396-398). New York, NY: Mcgraw-Hill Co..
Hothersall, David. (1995). History of Psychology. 4th ed. McGraw Hill Co: New York, New York.
Without theories, scientists’ experiments would yield no significance to the world. Theories are the core of the scientific community; therefore figuring out how to determine which theory prevails amongst the rest is an imperative matter. Kuhn was one of the many bold scientists to attempt to bring forth an explanation for why one theory is accepted over another, as well as the process of how this occurs, known as the Scientific Revolution. Kuhn chooses to refer to a theory as a ‘paradigm’, which encompasses a wide range of definitions such as “a way of doing science in a specific field”, “claims about the world”, “methods of fathering/analyzing data”, “habits of scientific thought and action”, and “a way of seeing the world and interacting with it” (Smith, pg.76). However in this case, we’ll narrow paradigm to have a similar definition to that of a ‘theory’, which is a system of ideas used to explain something; it can also be deemed a model for the scientific community to follow. Kuhn’s explanation of a Scientific Revolution brings to light one major problem—the problem of incommensurability.
Kim, Jaegwon (1992), “Multiple Realization and the Metaphysics of Reduction,” Philosophy and Phenomenological Research, 52: 1-26.
This essay aims to discuss the problems of the common view of science which was presented by Alan Chalmers by Popperian's view and my personal opinions. Chalmers gives his opinion about what science is and the judgment will be made in this essay through the Popperian hypothetico-deductive and my arguments will be presented in this essay. Popperian is an important philosopher of science who developed hypothetico-deductive method, which is also known as falsificationism. In my opinion, I disagree Chlamer points of view of science and this will be present in essay later. I will restrict my arguments into three parts due to the word limitation. Three aspects will be discussed in this essay: justifying the view through the Popper's view, my agreement about the Popper's objections and additional personal opinions.
In the essay “Studies In the Logic of Explanation”, Carl Hempel attempts to break down scientific explanation into its fundamental components in pursuit of defining what it means to explain a phenomenon scientifically. In doing so, he proposes a set of rigorous criteria that he believes constitute a true explanation. He starts by separating an explanation “into two major constituents, the explanandum and the explanans” (136). The explanandum is the phenomenon that is to be explained, while the explanans represent a series of statements which “account for the phenomenon” (137). According to Hempel, the explanans can be further subdivided into particular antecedent conditions and certain general laws which can be combined in such a way to
6. L. Pearce Williams and Henry John Steffens, The Scientific Revolution, vol. 2 of The
... middle of paper ... ... Journal of the History of the Behavioral Sciences, 35(1), 1–22. Leahey T. H (1992) The Mythical Revolutions of American Psychology.
Earlier Science was treated as an institution but now, it includes many things like "scientific experiments, "theories" etc. The authors argue that this knowledge should viewed in terms of "socially constructed" and not the one known as "scientific truth". This article points that in the social constructivist view, the 'science' it is just another system of knowledge which contains empirical researches and studies. It is basically concerned with what is "truth", how it has emerged, accepted and explained in social domain. ...
Krauss, Lawrence Maxwell, and Richard Dawkins. A Universe from Nothing: Why There Is Something Rather than Nothing. New York, NY: Free, 2012. 7-8. Print.
Cooper, Lawrence, Cary Murphy. Studies in History and Philosophy of Science Chicago: Taylor & Francis, 1996
Moreover, the nature of human beings in “The Nature and Necessity of Scientific Revolution” is to change. Kuhn’s work mentions that as the universe is evolving, human beings seek
Pearson, K. (1907, August). On the Influence of Past Experience on Future Expectations. The Philosophical Magazine, pp.365-378. Popper, K. (1961). The 'Pie The Logic of Scientific Discovery.