In this paper I will argue that Kuhn’s defense on the two charges against his view is good although it does have weak spots in them. When Kuhn came out with his book The Structure of Scientific Revolution in 1962, it became quite controversial. There is one specific charge that was held against Kuhn’s view that his view makes it seems that theory change is merely a matter of “mob psychology.” In response to all the critical things that were said about his book, Kuhn wrote The Essential Tension in 1972, within this book he defended his view against the charge in the chapter “Objectivity, Value Judgment, and Theory Choice.” While his defenses against these charges are acceptable, they are no where iron clad strong and do have a few weak spots in them.
First I will explain what Kuhn’s view is. Kuhn’s view surrounds the notion of theory change called paradigms. A paradigm can be defined as ‘a way of seeing the world’ or ‘a whole way of doing science in a particular field’. Godfrey-Smith explains that paradigms can also be divided into the broad or narrow sense. To use it in a broad sense would be for example methods for gathering and analyzing data, and habits of scientific thoughts and action. It could be seen as whole ways of doing science. While to use the word “paradigm” in a narrow sense would be to have examples that are used as models, inspiring and directing further work of the paradigm. In general, paradigms in the broad sense would include within them paradigms in the narrow sense. A particular scientific filed would only have one paradigm guiding it in any particular time.
Inside a paradigm there are four phases of scientific inquiry. The first phase is called “normal science.” Godfrey-Smith defines this p...
... middle of paper ...
...t are favorable to the specific theory, thus making it seem more likely to be chosen. Secondly, while Kuhn does mention what should influence theory choice, he does not say what should be the leading factor. He does prove his point that if the criteria are used as values and not rules, these will lessen the amount of problems that build up while in the process of theory choice.
Works Cited
Godfrey-Smith, Peter. Theory and Reality: An Introduction to the Philosophy of Science.Chicago: The University of Chicago Press, 2003. Print.
Kuhn, Thomas. “Objectivity, Value Judgment, and Theory Choice,” The Essential Tension: Selected Studies in the Scientific Tradition and Change. Reprinted from The University of Chicago, 1974. Accessed, February 18, 2012.
http://commonsenseatheism.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/04/Kuhn-Objectivity-Value-Judgment-and-Theory-Choice.pdf
Any hypothesis, Gould says, begins with the collection of facts. In this early stage of a theory development bad science leads nowhere, since it contains either little or contradicting evidence. On the other hand, Gould suggests, testable proposals are accepted temporarily, furthermore, new collected facts confirm a hypothesis. That is how good science works. It is self-correcting and self-developing with the flow of time: new information improves a good theory and makes it more precise. Finally, good hypotheses create logical relations to other subjects and contribute to their expansion.
Kuhn states that the first stage is the pre-paradigm period, next is the normal science stage, than the crisis period, and last is the scientific revolution. The pre-paradigm stage only happens once, this is when multiple paradigms compete to target a certain problem without a consensus on which is correct. This stage evolves when the scientific community
Messenger, E., Gooch, J., & Seyler, D. U. (2011). Arguing About Science. Argument! (pp. 396-398). New York, NY: Mcgraw-Hill Co..
In the AOK of the natural sciences, having a skeptical approach can be quite beneficial. The natural sciences utilizes extensive methods in which they come to conclusions about the information presented, based on the various experiment...
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.
Henry, John. (2001). The scientific revolution and the origins of modern science. Houndmills, Basingstoke, Hampshire: Palgrave Publishing
Popper claims basic statements are not justified by experience, but accepted by choice or convention. This claim is argued through a rejection of ‘psychologism’ and inductivism. According to Popper, scientific theory can be seen the fog above a swamp full of basic statements; the acceptance of a theory comes from an evaluation of basic statements and the conscious decision to accept or reject the theory. Popper comes to this conclusion after considering the problem of psychologism, distinguishing science from non-science, examining the falsification of theories and their testability, and then comparing perceptual experience and basic statements to illustrate how we come to form and accept scientific theory as empirical. Poppers arguments are
Demarcation between science and non-science or pseudo science is particularly important in scientific education, as it determines, for almost every member of our society, what they will accept as true regarding science, particularly creationism and evolution. Having public ...
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.
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).
Vary, David. "Brief history on the Scientific Revolution." New York Times 02 Feb. 1990: 12B
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...
In contemporary Western society, there is an impulse to find something to project ones alienation upon. For those who support Berry’s outlook in the essay Life Is a Miracle, this entity is the scientific method. Berry argues that science, in its purest form is good, but that we rely too heavily upon the scientific method and the pursuit of knowledge, which leads to disenchantment and loss of wonderment about the world .
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...
As the introduction prepared us for this, we can discern three different phases in the history of institutional development of science. If we put them in an order according to chronological interest that each phase has, we could say that the first one is the pre-science phase, the second is the science for gentlemen and the third is the phase of professional science. (Dr. Nedeva Maria, Lecture “The story of science”, 2006)