- KUHN: Structure of scientific revolutions
How are scientific revolutions like political revolutions?
Growing sense of dissatisfaction with existing paradigm.
- The existing paradigm does not function adequately regarding the goals it previously
performed.
- The ensuing crisis is a prerequisite for revolution.
During times of crisis, there are no rules for reconciling crisis.
- Parties to different paradigms become polarized / incompatible.
- Persuasion becomes the only means to convince one of the superiority of one’s
preferred paradigm.
- Superiority of one paradigm can’t be settled by logic and experiment alone.
Paradigm
“universally recognized scientific achievements that, for a time, provide model
problems and solutions for a community of practitioners,” i.e.,
- What is to be observed and scrutinized
- The kind of questions that are supposed to be asked and probed for answers in
relation to this subject
- How these questions are to be structured
- What predictions made by the primary theory within the discipline
- How the results of scientific investigations should be interpreted
- How an experiment is to be conducted, and what equipment is available to conduct
the experiment
Exemplars:
the experiments / practices to be copied / emulated.
Disciplinary matrix:
Disciplinary matrix:
Question: What do paradigm shifts indicate about scientific progress?
1.That ‘normal science’ occurs during stable periods in between moments of crisis /
revolution.
2.That scientific frameworks(which represent paradigms) constrain theories and models of
normal science.
- This indicates a hierarchy.
–> Normal science consists of constant but small changes. A paradigm change consists of drastic shift away from normality.
Examples of framework theories
- Biological theory of disease
- Theory of evolution by natural selection
- Newtonian theory of mechanics
- Computational theory of cognition
Examples of specific theories
- Theory of how ulcers arise
- Theory of how the tiger got its stripes
- Theory of how tides work
- Theory of how concept learning works
- KUHN: Crisis and incommensurability
What is involved in normal science?
- Kuhn calls it “puzzle-solving” (as opposed to “problem-solving”)
- Articulation of the paradigm, setting aside fundamental questions.
- Scientists follow exemplars, according to training in the field.
- Since commitment to a paradigm involves.
Commitment to generalizations, laws, and standardized procedures.
Commitment to preferred types of instrumentation, experimentation.
Commitment to metaphysical beliefs and principles.
➢ Puzzle-solving in normal science > It contributes toward theories of a framework, and
hence, contributes toward the existing paradigm
➢ Important: Normal science reinforce the paradigm
What brings about a crisis?
Kuhn mentions 3 reasons new phenomena may not be threatening:
1. Some new phenomena fits in with but is not destructive to existing scientific paradigms.
•E.g., discovery of life in the universe
2. Some new phenomena is not previously known and therefore fills a new theoretical
space.
•E.g., discovery of quantum particles and properties
3. Some new phenomena might link groups of lower theories together
•E.g., Discovery of the theory of energy conservation
- All this supports a view of science as cumulative; but none of it is anomalousorcrisisinducing
According to Kuhn, the rejection of a paradigm happens only when:
1. A critical mass of anomalies has arisen, and
2. A rival paradigm has appeared.
An anomaly is a puzzle that resisted a solution.
- All paradigms face some anomalies at a given time.
- But anomalies tend to accumulate.
- If anomalies cause researchers to lose faith in their field, then a crisis ensues
A crisis is a period when an existing paradigm has lost the ability to inspire and guide
scientists,
- During crisis, no new paradigm has emerged to get the field back on track.
What is involved in a paradigm change is up for debate.
For Kuhn, paradigm changes have the following characteristics:
- Paradigm choice is made by the communityof scientists
- •It involves a transfer of allegiance of scientists, i.e. it is a ‘conversion experience
which cannot be forced’ - It is accomplished by persuasive argumentation and ‘neither proof nor error is at
issue’ - Not evidence-driven or rational.
- Not cumulative: a new paradigm replaces the previous one.
- One paradigm is incommensurable with another!
. KUHN: Social science
What does Kuhn mean by incommensurability?
Does NOT mean:
- That people do not understand each other at all;
- Only partial miscommunication.
Does NOT mean:
- That all comparison is excluded;
- Only certain aspects comparison is possible, but not with regard to ‘validity of
evidence’, ‘good arguments’ and ‘truth’.
- DOES mean: There is no neutral yardstick of standards, norms and values (‘absolute
truth criteria’
Popper
- A good scientist is permanently open-minded with respect to all issues in a field in
which he or she is working, even the very basic issues. - Scientific progress is generally cumulative.
Kuhn
- Scientists working on normal science should take the fundamentals of the paradigm
as given so that progress can be made on the details. - Scientific progress is cumulative only within a paradigm.
Are there paradigms in the social sciences?
? > This depends on what we mean by a
‘paradigm’
E.g., Behaviorism
- Worldview: Exclusively focused on observable behavior.
- Exemplars: empirical and experimental research (similar to natural sciences).
- Conceptual framework: thinking in terms of prediction and control.
- Specific example: Watson and Pavlov
Smith (III): at least three interpretations of ‘paradigm’
Paradigm 1 –Single dominant framework (i.e. world view) -> KUHN
Paradigm 2 –Distinct scientific community with own institutional foundation
Paradigm 3 –Different schools of thought, theoretical perspectives
- Paradigm 1 –E.g., Behaviorism
- Paradigm 2 –E.g., Cognitive Psychology and Social Psychology (after replacing
Behaviorism)
- Paradigm 3 –E.g., various schools of, e.g., Social Psychology
3 philosophers of science
. Thomas Kuhn
- Key feature of this theory: emphasis placed on the revolutionary character of
scientific progress, where a revolution involves the abandonment of one theoretical
structure and its replacement by another, incompatible one.
- Another important feature: the role played by the sociological characteristics of
scientific communities.
Kuhn’s picture of the way a science progresses
Pre-science > normal science > crisis > revolution > new normal science > new crisis
Paradigms and normal science
Paradigm = made up of the general theoretical assumptions and laws and the techniques for
their application that the members of a particular scientific community adopt.
➢ The paradigm sets the standards for legitimate work within the science it governs.
Workers within a paradigm practise what Kuhn calls normal science
Normal science
= involves detailed attempts to articulate a paradigm with the aim of
improving the match between it and nature.
- Kuhn portrays normal science as a puzzle-solving activity governed by the rules of a
paradigm.
- Lack of disagreement over fundamentals distinguishes mature, normal science from
the disorganises immature pre-science.
- Normal scientists will articulate and develop the paradigm in their attempt to
account for and accommodate the behaviour of some relevant aspect of the real
world as revealed through the results of experimentation.
- Normal scientists work confidently within a well-defined area dictated by a paradigm
Crisis and revolution
Crisis: resolved when an entirely new paradigm emerges and attracts the allegiance
of more and more scientists until the original, problem-ridden paradigm is
abandoned.
- This discontinuous change constitutes a scientific revolution
Failures within a paradigm constitutes a serious crisis for the paradigm > may lead to
rejection of paradigm and its replacement by an alternative.
It is the myth, stupid! NRC Handelsblad - Graaf, Beatrice de (2016).
Hoe komen een Reagan en een Trump aan presidentschap?
Reagan bouwde consistent aan mythes die zo beeldend en overtuigend werkten dat niet
alleen hijzelf, maar ook een fiks deel van de Amerikaanse burgers er in ging geloven.
- Mythes diepe morele waarheden. Het is verbijsterend hoezeer we als elites vergeten
dat denken niet alleen, en vaak helemaal niet, objectief, bewust en rationeel is.
Descartes, Kant en de Verlichting hebben ons in het ootje genomen.
De Duitse onderzoekster Elisabeth Wehling - Onderzoekt ze hoe enorm beïnvloedbaar ons denken is door morele metaforen en
beelden.
Twee morele metaforen gebruikt die Trump steeds liet terugkeren (en die aanspreken bij
conservatieve kiezers (rijk en arm)) - De metafoor van het huisgezin, met Trump als ‘Big Daddy’ die alles oplost,
- Metafoor van de lichamelijke onreinheid - buitenlanders, Mexicanen, vrouwen zijn
vies, etc…
→ Een tweepartijensysteem zonder nooduitgang naar alternatieve kandidaten en partijen
Social Science in Question - Smith, Mark J. (1998)
Paradigms in the social sciences (paradigma = patroon van aannamens)
Paradigm 1
Paradigms are incommensurable, and they are assumed to succeed one another
rather than compete.
Paradigm 2
Distinct scientific community with its own institutional foundation and academic
ladder existing within a particular field of knowledge. Acknowledgement of
competing paradigm in the same field of knowledge requires them to be
incommensurable.
Paradigm 3
Used to designate a school of thought, theoretical perspective or set of problems.
Clearest illustration can be seen in psychology with the emergence of the behaviorist
approach
- Behaviorism was influential in establishing psychology as a scientific discipline
- Psychology is often identified as the closest to the natural sciences
- Behaviorist approach focuses upon observable behavior, rather than inner states
→ It is this difference in approach which marks of behaviorism from earlier forms of
experimental psychology, as a paradigm 1. → Incommensurable
