Lizbeth Sanchez
World Civilizations
Professor Anderson
February 16, 2015
A review on the scientific revolution In “the structure of scientific revolutions”, Thomas S. Kuhn challenges the notion that science is a linear and continuous process that heads toward finding the truth. Kuhn uses a variety of secondary sources, footnotes and examples of scientific revolutions executed by Copernicus, Newton, and Einstein among others. Using the words “paradigm” and “normal science” as a way to describe revolutions, Kuhn successfully meets his endeavor to change the way science is perceived and scrutinized. Readers that come in contact with the book will learn that when an accepted scientific theory accumulates so many anomalies, and questions that
…show more content…
To be clear, the way textbooks tend to present scientific discoveries is in a cumulative and coherent process. This is the view Kuhn tries to advocate against. Kuhn states that, “Those text have, for example, often seemed to imply that the consent of science is uniquely exemplified by observations, laws and theories described in their pages […] the result has been a concept of science with profound implications about its nature and development”( Kuhn, pg.1). Scientific textbooks show us only the current paradigm. By doing so, the message is that this is the accepted theory and the only one you need to know. There is no need …show more content…
Kuhn states that “in this essay, normal science means research firmly based upon one or more past scientific achievements, achievements that some particular scientific community acknowledges for a time as supplying the foundation for its further practice”(Kuhn, Section 2, pg.10). Normal science is what scientist devote most of their time to. This activity consist of putting the pieces to an unsolved puzzle together, evaluating the theory, and finding out which facts go with the theory. The scientist is limited to think within the constraints of normal science. Finding ground breaking discoveries is not his purpose. Nor is he encouraged to do so. For there to be normal science, there has to be a shared paradigm among the science community to be used as guidance. Otherwise, they are lost. An example Kuhn provides of this is when Newton introduced the paradigm Opticks: “Newton drew the first nearly uniformly accepted paradigm for physical optics […] Yet anyone examining a survey of physical optics before Newton may well conclude that, though the fields practitioners were scientist, the net result of their activity was something less than science”(Kuhn, Section 2, pg.13). Before opticks was introduced as the accepted Paradigm, scientist struggled to come up with their own evaluations, which often led to instability. It was not till after they accepted Newton’s theory that scientist were able to do
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.
The scientific revolution can be considered one of the biggest turning points in European history. Because of new scientific ideas and theories, a new dawn of thinking and questioning of natural elements had evolved. Scientific revolution thinkers such as Newton, Galileo, and Copernicus all saw nature as unknowable and wanted to separate myths from reality. During the scientific revolution during mid 1500-late 1600s, key figures such as Isaac Newton and Nicolaus Copernicus greatly impacted Europe in terms of astronomical discoveries, scientific methods, and the questioning of God to challenge the church’s teachings.
d. a. a. a. a. a. a. a. a. a. a. a. a. a. a. a. a. a. a. a. a. a. a. a. a. a. a. a. a. a. a. a. Is Science Autonomous? American Psychologist, 23, 70. Retrieved February 13, 2011, from http://journals.ohiolink.edu/ejc/article.cgi?issn=0003066x&issue=v23i0001&article=70_isa&search_term=%28title%3D%28is+science+autonomous%29%29 Messenger, E., Gooch, J., & Seyler, D. U. (2011). The 'Standard' of the 'Standard'. Arguing About Science -.
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
The two fundamental components of Kuhn’s proposition of scientific revolutions are the concepts of paradigms and paradigm shifts. He defines paradigms as “sufficiently unprecedented [theories] to attract an enduring group of adherents away from competing modes of scientific activity” (Kuhn, 10). Through this interpretation, Kuhn constructs the argument that possessing the ability to convince other scientists to agree with a novel proposal serves as the most crucial aspect for establishing scientific advancement. Kuhn reasons that the task of discovering “one full, objective, true account of nature” remains to be highly improbable (Kuhn...
A.J. Ayer, Karl Popper, Thomas Kuhn. "Science and Non science: Defining the Boundary." Part 1. Pages 6-19. [...]
Kuhn’s book was focused on the scientific world. He said that normal science “means research firmly based upon one or more past scientific achievments, achievments thatsome particular scientific community aacknowledges for a time as supplying the foundation for its further practice” (Kuhn 10). These achievments needed to be unprecedented and open-ended so as to attract a group away from competing ideas and to leave all sorts of problems for this group to resolve. these achievments are called paradigms. a paradigm is defined by Kuhn as “an accepted canon of scientific practice, including laws, theory, applications, and instrumentation, that provides a model for a particular coherent tradition of scientific research” (Trigger 5).
... been the underlying factor in many scientific advancements. Morris believes that, "It is an empiricism which, because of this orientation and the use of powerful tools of logical analysis, has become positive in temper and co-operative in attitude and is no longer condemned to the negative skeptical task of showing defects in the methods and results of its opponents(Neurath68)." The great accomplishments of Brahe, Kepler, Newton and the many others are due to the advancement of scientific empiricism.
The revolution brought about many radical changes and ideas that helped to strengthen it and the scientists that helped to bring it about became significant persons in history. "The emergence of a scientific community is one of the distinguishing marks of the Scientific Revolution."2 It was this form of community that gave a foundation for open thinking and observing throughout the sixteenth century and through twenty-first century. It was the first revolution that had more of a dedication to the ongoing process of science than of a goal to achieve scientific knowledge.3
"We often think of science as something inescapably linked to progress, and of progress as continually marching forward. We assume that there is something inevitable about the increase of knowledge and the benefits this knowledge brings" (Irvine & Russell). Provide humanity with wisdom and speculative enjoyment. This enjoyment of the public is through reading, learning and thinking. But scientists are met with the real research work.
The issue shall discuss the various differences between science and other types of knowledge and discuss the argument whether the science can rely without the separate theories posted by non-scientific educational bodies. ...
I am not saying that Newton’s and other theories like it are wrong, I am saying that we put too much faith in something that is not absolute, unfortunately we have no other choice.
The changes produced during the Scientific Revolution were not rapid but developed slowly and in an experimental way. Although its effects were highly influential, the forerunners Nicolaus Copernicus, Galileo Galilei, Isaac Newton, Francis Bacon, and Rene Descartes only had a few hundred followers. Each pioneered unique ideas that challenged the current views of human beingsí relationship with nature. With the backing of empirical observation and mathematical proof, these ideas slowly gained acceptance. As a result, the operation of society, along with prior grounds for faith were reconsidered. Their ideas promoted change and reform for humansí well-being on earth.
middle of paper ... ... Lindberg, David C. Reappraisals of the Scientific Revolution. Eds. David C. Lindberg and Robert S. Westman.
Many scientists seemed to play a small role in Kuhn’s paradigm. Newton believed that science could answer questions accurately, if not “nearly” truthfully. Newton still sought the truth, but acknowledged that one scientist could not solve all of the problems of the world, and thus would solve what he could and leave the harder stuff for people of the future. Newton also believed scientists should focus on observable physical matters that they could answer, rather than philosophical ideas that could not be solved. Newton gave Thomas Kuhn an example of a paradigm shift. Before Newton, there was what was considered new science, which had abjured to Aristotle’s old belief system and the...