Thomas Kuhn and Textbooks
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.
Central to the book's theme is the concept of textbooks. Kuhn argues that textbooks act merely as an advertisement into scientific disciplines, proclaiming instead that one should focus upon "the historical record of the research activity itself" (1). Although Kuhn elaborates on the distinction between the "incremental process" of the history of science and the "chronological" history of science, he fails to apply this distinction; rather, he refuses to recognize the bona fide purpose of textbooks as being simply an explanation of what science knows to be true at this point in time and instead believes more could be learned if textbooks were to "describe and explain the congeries of error, myth, and superstition" (2) of scientific predecessors.
Consider the metaphor of a textbook being an oak tree. As scientific knowledge is accrued, the tree grows accordingly. According to Kuhn, when an "error" is exposed or a "myth" is annulled, the tree would die and an acorn would fall. This acorn would then germinate, producing an offspring that would grow rapidly to be slightly larger than the former; this development would proceed as scientific advancements are made and then nullified. More importantly, Kuhn would agree that the entire tree should be the textbook: from the roots to the trunk to the branches and foliage at the top (representing the entire history of science).
Contrary to Kuhn's view would imply the tree never dies and a new tree never stems from it. Instead, there would be only one tree that would grow continuously. Furthermore, only the foliage atop the tree would be the textbook (representing what is currently known about science).
While the growth of the tree is based on the same premise of the incremental accrual of knowledge as Kuhn's tree, the difference lies in the fact that Kuhn's tree must die and then re-grow to become larger whereas the contrary tree is continuously growing.
For a student trustful of today's scientific prowess, the realization that science cannot prove anything came as a surprise to me in high school science class last year. Indeed, a skepticist would say that finding real truth is never possible given the chaotic nature of our world. Such a worldview is among the several interconnected themes in Jonathan Coe's The Winshaw Legacy.
“Science is not a body of facts. Science is a state of mind” (Angier 490). While both essays, “The Canon” by Natalie Angier, and “Scientific Literacy and the Habit of Discourse” by Thomas W. Martin, discuss the fact that science is practiced through actions and is not a set of facts to be learned; these two articles approach the topic differently. By using different rhetorical modes and having alternate styles, these two articles appear different; but they contain the same foundation of science and make similar points. Even though the article’s main points have similarities, the essays also contain many differences through their rhetorical mode, approach, and appeals.
A good view the Truax had was that for every tree cut down, 5 more are planted. It is a fact that newer trees give off more air than older trees, so cutting down the older trees
...ce, if this were scientific knowledge that apparently is not true, it would still be considered an item of order, a false one. However, if the false scientific data is currently acceptable, then our mindset and way of thinking remains unchanged, but, in the final analysis, science or technology cannot develop in the long term with false scientific information. The false scientific truth would have temporary impact on our lives, since we would notice there is a disorder with this false information and someone would challenge it and replace it with more accurate information. In fact, when we discover that this knowledge is in reality, false, we would fix it and progress further in the fields of science and technology, and our lives would therefore be greatly influenced in the short and long term.
However, by making the assumption that all statements are universally either “true” or “false”, he dismisses perfectly logical scientific explanations which are merely outdated. Specifically, he is saying that explanations that were previously accepted by the scientific community but are no longer due to “ampler evidence now available...was not-and had never been-a correct explanation” (138). This is simply not true, as the “correctness” of an explanation is not binary; that is, there may exist some explanations which provide partial explanations which may be perfectly accurate in some contexts, but misleading or even wrong in others. I will refer to this as the context dependency of scientific laws. A good example of such a phenomenon with more than one correct explanation is how electricity is produced. Electricity can be explained as the motion of electrons, which are subatomic particles that circulate around the nucleus of an atom. The Bohr model gives this explanation, claiming that an atom looks akin to our solar system. Recently, more accurate models like the Schroedinger model have come through to state that the Bohr model is not entirely accurate, and that the existence of electrons around atoms in certain places is based on probabilistic models. Despite this new information, the Bohr model can still be used to explain electricity and the motion of
Knowledge is something that can change day to day, which can be learned through both the natural and human sciences. Knowledge changes in the natural sciences when an experiment is conducted and more data has been gathered. Knowledge changes in human sciences when patterns are recognized in society and further tests have been conducted. Does our knowledge of things in the natural and human sciences change every day? I think that our knowledge grows everyday but does not necessarily change every day. The areas of knowledge that will be discussed in this essay are natural and human sciences. In History we can see that at one point something that was considered knowledge then transformed into different knowledge, especially in the natural sciences. However, in the past, due to lack of technology, it might have been more of a lack of knowledge that then turned into knowledge on the topic.
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.
The book is not providing explanation on what scientists did or how they did it. However, it offer explanations on how scientists think and how they make conclusions. In addition to the many topics explored, it is worth noting that there are also interesting tales behind some big discoveries in science which are an added attraction to this book. The Author, Dr Samir Okasha, a professor of philosophy of science at the Bristol University states that his aim of writing this book was to pass the philosophy of science in a way that can be understood by everyone. He also sought to pass his ideals in a manner that is free from complicated Jargon, with real world examples to enable all readers understand and
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...
Tycho Brahe, a Danish astronomer, held a great belief in the importance of empiricism in relation to scientific theories. He was one of the greatest opposer of Copernicusís On the Revolutions of the Heavenly Spheres. Brahe believed the Copernicus theory was not founded on a sufficient amount of "practice." Charles W. Morris, an author of The Encyclopedia and Unified Science who specialized in Scientific Empiricism, believes that practice is found at the heart of empiricism. Morris defines the importance of practice in scientific theories as: "The activity which gives rise to the sentences of science is, like any other systematic activity proceeding in terms of rules or canons(72)." It was based on these feelings of empiricism that inspired Brahe to, "collect the most accurate astronomical data that have ever been acquired by observation with the naked eye(Kagan331)." Brahe held the common belief among empiricist that, "It is willing and able to admit i...
This essay will discuss differences in motives which have driven ancient and modern science, arguing that 17th century alterations of power structures led to the ultimate division between modern and ancient science and the eruption of modern science as it is today. Comparisons will be drawn regarding knowledge accessibility, prevailing philosophies and ideologies, and the relationship between science and the church.
If you already know what a binary tree is, but not a general tree, then pay close attention, because binary trees are not just the special case of general trees with degree two. I use the definition of a tree from the textbook, but bear in mind that other definitions are possible.
Knowledge has a preliminary definition which is that it is justified true belief. Due to its dynamic nature, knowledge is subject to review and revision over time. Although, we may believe we have objective facts from various perceptions over time, such facts become re-interpreted in light of improved evidence, findings or technology and instigates new knowledge. This raises the questions, To what extent is knowledge provisional? and In what ways does the rise of new evidence give us a good reason to discard our old knowledge? This new knowledge can be gained in any of the different areas of knowledge, by considering the two areas of knowledge; History and Natural Sciences, I will be able to tackle these knowledge issues since they both offer more objective, yet regularly updated knowledge, which is crucial in order to explore this statement. I believe that rather than discarding knowledge we build upon it and in doing so access better knowledge, as well as getting closer to the truth.
...in the idea, this paradigm would be the most believed paradigm of our time. If a brick wall in the paradigm was to happen, then the world of science would once again be in chaos until a new brilliant mind came up with a new workable idea, rather than an idea simply building on the old non-working idea. Thomas Kuhn viewed his ideas of science as though science was Darwin’s organism. The strong and most ideally fit ideas were the ones to survive. In ages where young scientists, like Einstein, Darwin, and Newton are open to new possibilities when old possibilities prove unsuccessful, shifts in science occur, where only the strongest ideas survive. Darwin believed in survival of the fittest, and Kuhn based his beliefs on survival of the fittest idea for its time. Therefore, the entire makeup of Thomas Kuhn’s science was based on the ideologies of Charles Darwin.
Trees are usually considered as bland, unusual objects that are usually taken for granted; however, I believe there is more to a tree that meets the eye. They supply oxygen and shade. During the holidays, trees are able to spread holiday cheer by wearing holiday decorations. Through providing, they are always beneficial to the needs of others. Rather than having striking beauty like a flower, trees have are grounded and possess a gentle beauty; they are adapted wildflowers to their environment. In fact, if I had to compare myself to an inanimate object, I would choose a tree. A tree has many characteristics in common with me. Characteristics like relying on our roots, strength and observation, and helping others and leaving behind a powerful legacy are a few of the traits we share. All of which I believe are admirable qualities to possess.