Alexander Shimamura
Professor Sklar
PHIL 381
4/11/13
Paradigm Shifts Throughout Science
Thomas Kuhn, one of the most widely recognized contributors to the discipline of the philosophy of science, raises the argument within The Structure of Scientific Revolutions that advancement within the field of science occurs in a revolutionary manner as opposed to one more progressive or cumulative. Kuhn makes the observation that scientific research is conducted cumulatively where every piece of evidence contributes towards gradually understanding a specific scientific phenomenon (Kuhn, 96). However, lasting scientific advancement only transpires when previously accepted scientific theories are overturned with entirely different, more suitable theories. Kuhn makes reference to the Copernican Heliocentric model as an instance to validate his assertion (Forster). Applying Kuhn’s argument to this revolutionary theory will provide clarity and further understanding necessary to demonstrate how this philosophical approach can be applicable towards relatively modern scientific theories such as plate tectonics.
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...
... middle of paper ...
...n the Perception of Incongruity: A Paradigm,”
Journal of Personality, XVIII (1949), 206-23.
Kuhn, Thomas. The Structure of Scientific Revolutions. University of Chicago Press, 1962. Print.
Linde, Andrei, Dmitri Linde, and Arthur Mezhlumian. "From the Big Bang theory to the theory of a stationary universe." Physical Review D 49.4 (1994): 1783.
Madhusudan, H R. "1610: The year that improved our ‘vision’." Resonance. 15.10 (2010): n.
Oreskes, Naomi. "The rejection of continental drift." Historical studies in the physical and biological sciences 18.2 (1988): 311-348.
Ravetz, J R. "The Copernican revolution-from them to now." Physics Education. 8.7 (1973): n.
Wegener, Alfred. The Origin of Continents and Oceans. New York: 1915. Print.
Zhang, Youxue. "Earth 107: Plate Tectonics 1." University of Michigan Department of Geology.
Ann Arbor, MI. 14 Mar 2013. Lecture.
Who were the four key figures who contributed to disenchanting the view of the universe?
Thomas Kuhn, an American Philosopher of Science in the twentieth century, introduced the controversial idea of "paradigm shifts" in his 1962 book "The Structure of Scientific Revolutions." This essay will discuss paradigm shifts, scientific revolutions, mop up work, and other key topics that Kuhn writes about in "The Structure of Scientific Revolutions" in great detail. This essay will explain what Kuhn means by mop up work, by drawing on the broader view of paradigms that he presents and explaining how paradigms are born and develop such that they structure the activities of normal science in specific ways, and this essay will show how this kind of mop up work can, in certain circumstances, lead to a new paradigm instead of more normal science.
Kuhn’s theory of paradigm shift. Mr. Bawazer offers a strong case. As an example from Mr. Kuhn’s theory we can understand how the different dog breeds evolved from the wolf. Depending on what type of breed you want from a hunting dog to a family dog breed, you can alter the DNA by letting the alpha dog to continue to breed or not. Next, we can realized that everything in this planet contains molecules or genes that can be altered. We also recognize that paradigm science and paradigm shift is a circular state not a steady line. This means that we have to adjust to what is going on the present time and expand from it, but always remember how it was done in the past. Thomas Edison well said “I have not failed. I’ve just found 10,000 ways that won’t work.” The only way to change science is to continue to try without being afraid of failing. If different engineers and industries unites forces to promote the use of natural resources rather than inventing new ones and also with the help of the government of going “green” will definitely help the environment to prevent
In papal Rome in the early 16th century the “Good Book” was the reference book for all scientists. If a theory was supported in its holy pages, or at the very least not contradicted, then the idea had a chance of find acceptance outside the laboratory. Likewise, no theory no matter how well documented could be viewed with anything but disdain if it contradicted with the written word of, or the Church’s official interpretation of scripture. For these reasons the Church suppressed helio-centric thinking to the point of making it a hiss and a byword. However, this did not keep brave men from exploring scientific reason outside the canonical doctrine of the papal throne, sometimes at the risk of losing their own lives. While the Vatican was able to control the universities and even most of the professors, it could not control the mind of one man known to the modern world as Galileo Galilei. Despite a wide array of enemies, Galileo embarked on a quest, it seems almost from the beginning of his academic career, to defend the Copernican idea of a helio-centric universe by challenging the authority of the church in matters of science. Galileo‘s willingness to stand up for what he held to be right in the face of opposition from Bible-driven science advocates set him apart as one of the key players in the movement to separate Church authority from scientific discovery, and consequently paved the way for future scientific achievement.
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.
Atwood takes many of today’s potential scientific developments and illustrates the worst possible outcome of what may happen if we continue the unregulated pursuit of knowledge. In reality, the scientific advances of today will yield a higher standard of living for the majority of the world tomorrow. We will continue to push for the best in everything including science, medicine, and technology; we will not allow any single person to make the sole decision to develop an idea. Scientific progression will save many lives; therefore, it should and will always be there for us.
A.J. Ayer, Karl Popper, Thomas Kuhn. "Science and Non science: Defining the Boundary." Part 1. Pages 6-19. [...]
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
This third outcome – the emergence of a new paradigm – is what Kuhn views as a scientific revolution. He argues that when a new paradigm emerges, the old one must be rejected, which is revolutionary because the perception of scientist’s worldwide. This midsection of
Since the beginning of academic studies, inquiries into history and science have often and generally been regarded as two completely opposite entities. In addition to different research methods, dissimilar types of "scholars" approached these diverse endeavors. In his book The Structure of Scientific Revolutions, Thomas Kuhn discusses the juxtaposition of this dichotomy—namely the history of science.
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).
middle of paper ... ... Lindberg, David C. Reappraisals of the Scientific Revolution. Eds. David C. Lindberg and Robert S. Westman.
The aim of this essay is to provide a summary and critique of Thomas S. Kuhn’s groundbreaking thesis ‘The Structure of Scientific Revolutions.’ This will be done by analyzing his concepts of ‘paradigm’, ‘normal science’ and ‘scientific revolutions.’ Following the overview I will present the example of ‘The Copernican Revolution’ to empirically show a paradigm shift. The rest of the essay is concerned specifically with critically examining Kuhn’s notion of a paradigm and the incommensurability between them. I will show that to define paradigm is a never ending task however this should not hinder the usefulness of the concept itself.
Over the course of the years, society has been reformed by new ideas of science. We learn more and more about global warming, outer space, and technology. However, this pattern of gaining knowledge did not pick up significantly until the Scientific Revolution. In the sixteenth and seventeenth century, the Scientific Revolution started, which concerned the fields of astronomy, mechanics, and medicine. These new scientists used math and observations strongly contradicting religious thought at the time, which was dependent on the Aristotelian-Ptolemy theory. However, astronomers like Copernicus, Kepler, Galileo, and Newton accepted the heliocentric theory. Astronomical findings of the Scientific Revolution disproved the fact that humans were the center of everything, ultimately causing people to question theology’s role in science and sparking the idea that people were capable of reasoning for themselves.
According to Thomas Kuhn, who was an American physicist, historian and a philosopher of science and the first person to share this idea with the world trough his book The Structure of Scientific Revolutions, "A paradigm is what members of a scientific community, and they alone, share". So in other words it is a scientific proven fact.