Chapter 2.4: Michel Foucault, epistemes
Summary
TLDRThis lecture explores Michel Foucault's influential concept of 'epistemic' in the history of science, contrasting it with Kuhn's 'paradigm shifts.' Foucault argues that unconscious rules, or 'epistemes,' govern scientific discourse, shaping what is considered serious science. These epistemes are broader and more enduring than paradigms, affecting all sciences and undergoing fewer, yet profound, changes over time. The lecture suggests that understanding these shifts can offer insight into the nature of scientific progress and its societal impacts.
Takeaways
- 📚 Michel Foucault is renowned for his impact on the understanding of science and society, particularly his analysis of power and epistemic history.
- 🔍 Foucault, like Kuhn, sees the history of science as having sudden ruptures rather than a smooth progression, but his concept of 'epistemic' differs from Kuhn's 'paradigm shifts'.
- 🧠 Foucault critiques the emphasis on the individual subject in history, advocating for an examination of large-scale processes and unconscious rules that shape scientific discourse.
- 🤔 He challenges the focus on conscious phenomena in the history of science, arguing that unconscious rules are more critical in determining how we think and act.
- 📖 Foucault introduces the concept of 'episteme' as a set of unconscious rules that govern scientific discourse, distinct from the conscious constructs like theories and methods.
- 🐉 The script provides the example of 'bestiaries' from the Middle Ages to illustrate how different the episteme of that time was from modern scientific inquiry.
- 🚫 Foucault emphasizes that the episteme dictates what is taken seriously in science, contrasting the moralizing of medieval authors with the strict empirical focus of modern scientists.
- 🌐 The episteme is broader than a paradigm, encompassing all scientific disciplines within a society and time period, unlike paradigms which are specific to individual disciplines.
- ⏳ Foucault identifies only three epistemes in European science over the past five centuries, suggesting that changes in the episteme are rare but have profound impacts on all sciences.
- 🌟 The script suggests that understanding Foucault's episteme is crucial for grasping the underlying structures that influence scientific thought and practice.
- 🔮 The possibility of an impending change in the episteme is hinted at, implying a potential revolution in how science is conducted and perceived.
Q & A
Who is Michel Foucault and what is his impact on the study of science and society?
-Michel Foucault is a renowned philosopher and social theorist who has significantly influenced the way we understand science and society. He is best known for his analysis of power and his approach to the history of science, particularly his concept of 'epistemic' which has been very influential.
What does Foucault believe about the history of science compared to Kuhn's view?
-Like Kuhn, Foucault believes that the history of science is not a single smooth trajectory towards more knowledge but includes sudden changes or ruptures. However, while Kuhn describes these changes as 'paradigm shifts', Foucault introduces the concept of 'epistemic' to describe the underlying assumptions that govern scientific discourse.
What is Foucault's critique of the traditional approach to history, particularly in the context of science?
-Foucault criticizes the traditional approach to history for overemphasizing the subject or the individual, such as focusing on the decisions made by important leaders or individual scientists. He argues for a shift away from the level of consciousness of subjects to the unconscious rules that determine how we think, write, and act in the context of science.
What is an 'episteme' according to Foucault?
-An 'episteme' in Foucault's terms is a set of unconscious rules that govern all serious scientific discourse in a certain society and time period. It determines what is taken seriously in science and shapes the discourse without the scientists being consciously aware of these rules.
How does Foucault's concept of 'episteme' differ from Kuhn's 'paradigm'?
-While a 'paradigm' in Kuhn's view consists of conscious elements like theories, methods, and concepts that scientists work with, Foucault's 'episteme' involves unconscious rules that are deeply ingrained and often unnoticed. An 'episteme' is also broader, encompassing all scientists, not just those in a specific discipline.
How does Foucault approach the history of science in terms of individual contributions versus large-scale processes?
-Foucault suggests that the history of science is not solely determined by individual geniuses but by large-scale processes and tendencies within science and society. He posits that even if significant figures like Newton, Darwin, or Freud had never lived, our scientific understanding might have been largely the same.
What is the significance of 'bestiaries' in the context of medieval science as discussed in the script?
-Bestiaries were popular in the Middle Ages, often beautifully illustrated collections of animal descriptions with little critical fact-checking. They were taken seriously as sources of knowledge and often included moral or religious lessons drawn from the animal kingdom, reflecting the 'episteme' of the time which allowed for such discourse.
How do the rules of the 'episteme' affect the scientific community according to Foucault?
-The rules of the 'episteme' determine what kinds of discourse are taken seriously in science. They govern the types of speech or writing that are considered valid and significant within a scientific community, often without the scientists being consciously aware of these rules.
What are the three epistemic changes Foucault identifies in European science over the past five hundred years?
-Foucault claims that there have been three epistemic changes in European science in the past five hundred years, which he suggests occurred around 1600 and again around 1800. These changes represent significant shifts in the underlying assumptions that govern scientific discourse.
What impact does a change in 'episteme' have on science according to Foucault?
-A change in 'episteme' has a profound impact on science, as it alters the very rules that determine which ideas and theories are taken seriously across all scientific disciplines. This can lead to a fundamental shift in the approach and understanding of scientific inquiry.
How does Foucault's analysis of the 'episteme' challenge traditional historical narratives?
-Foucault's analysis challenges traditional historical narratives by suggesting that history, including the history of science, is not just a story of individual actions and decisions but is also shaped by unconscious rules and structures that influence the discourse and direction of scientific thought.
Outlines
📚 Foucault's Epistemic and the History of Science
This paragraph introduces Michel Foucault's significant influence on the perception of science and society. Foucault's analysis of power and his unique approach to the history of science are highlighted. Unlike Kuhn's paradigm shifts, Foucault emphasizes 'epistemes' or unconscious rules that govern scientific discourse, rather than conscious beliefs and decisions of individuals. Foucault critiques the traditional focus on individual subjects in history, advocating for an examination of the broader processes and tendencies within science and society. His concept of 'episteme' is distinguished from Kuhn's 'paradigm,' suggesting that large-scale changes in science may not be driven by individual geniuses but by underlying shifts in the way science and society operate.
🤔 The Unconscious Rules of Scientific Discourse
The second paragraph delves into Foucault's idea of 'epistemes' as unconscious rules that dictate what is taken seriously in scientific discourse. It contrasts personal decisions and conscious thoughts with the broader cultural and societal norms that influence behavior and scientific inquiry. The paragraph provides an example of medieval bestiaries, illustrating how the episteme of the time allowed for moral and religious interpretations of animals, in stark contrast to modern scientific practices that demand critical examination and a separation of science from moralizing. Foucault's argument is that these epistemic shifts are more profound than changes within a scientific discipline's paradigm, as they encompass all scientific discourse and occur less frequently.
🕰️ Major Shifts in European Scientific Epistemes
The final paragraph discusses the historical shifts in European scientific epistemes as identified by Foucault. It suggests that there have been only three major epistemic changes in the past five centuries, each with a profound impact on the entire scientific community. These shifts, which occurred around 1600 and 1800, redefined the rules for what constitutes serious scientific thought and inquiry. The paragraph ends with a contemplation of the possibility of another epistemic change in the future, hinting at the dynamic and evolving nature of scientific thought.
Mindmap
Keywords
💡Michel Foucault
💡Epistemic
💡Paradigm Shift
💡AP Stammer
💡History of Science
💡Subject
💡Consciousness
💡Unconscious Rules
💡Bestiaries
💡Evolutionary Biology
💡Scientific Community
Highlights
Michel Foucault's impact on the understanding of science and society.
Foucault's analysis of power and its distinction from Kuhn's paradigm shifts.
The concept of 'epistemic' as a framework for historical analysis of science.
Critique of the overemphasis on the subject in historical narratives.
Foucault's approach to history beyond individual consciousness.
The importance of unconscious rules in shaping scientific discourse.
Definition and explanation of 'AP stammer' as unconscious scientific rules.
Difference between 'AP stammer' and Kuhn's 'paradigm'.
The breadth of 'epistemic' encompassing all scientists, unlike specific scientific paradigms.
The rarity of epistemic changes in European science over the past five centuries.
The significant impact of epistemic changes on all sciences simultaneously.
Examples of medieval bestiaries versus modern biology textbooks to illustrate epistemic shifts.
The potential for an upcoming epistemic change in science.
Foucault's view on the insignificance of individual geniuses in the history of science.
The role of large-scale processes and societal tendencies in shaping scientific progress.
Cultural and unconscious rules that govern behavior and scientific thought.
The unconscious nature of epistemic rules in scientific communities.
The distinction between science and moralizing in modern epistemic.
Transcripts
[Music]
michel foucault has had a huge impact on
the way we think about science and
society he is perhaps best known for his
analysis of power which we'll talk about
in another lecture but his approach to
the history of science and especially
his analysis of that history in terms of
what he calls epistemic has also been
very influential and that's what we will
focus on today just like Kuhn Foucault
believes that the history of science is
not one single smooth trajectory towards
more and more knowledge instead there
are sudden changes sudden ruptures as we
know Kuhn understood these sudden
changes in terms of paradigm shifts when
the background assumptions of a science
are switched for different ones almost
overnight fucose idea about the history
of science is at the same time very
similar and very different it is very
similar because just like Kuhn he
believes that big ruptures occur when
certain background assumptions are
changed Foucault calls the some of these
assumptions an AP stammered and a casual
reader might think that that is just a
different word for paradigm but in
reality fucose concept of an AP stammer
is also very different from Koons
concept of a paradigm in order to
understand Foucault we need to
understand this difference so what is an
AP stammer before we answer that
question we first need to discuss the
way in which Foucault approaches history
according to Foucault all of us
including historians have a tendency to
put way too much emphasis on the subject
that is on the individual human being
and her beliefs desires decisions and so
on for instance if we want to explain
why Germany lost the Second World War we
tend to favor explanation
in terms of decisions made by important
leaders like Hitler and Church you
Germany lost the war because Hitler
suffered from a mental breakdown and
started making foolish decisions that's
the kind of theory that we can easily
comprehend and that we find satisfying
but it might not be the best explanation
would Germany really have one with a
different leader perhaps there were
large-scale economic geographical and
political facts which basically
predetermined that Germany would lose
maybe no individual not even Hitler made
that much of a difference to the outcome
explanations in terms of such impersonal
forces can feel abstract and
unsatisfying but they might be closer to
the truth than explanations in terms of
individual subjects now the same thing
might be true in a history of science we
like to talk about individual geniuses
like Newton Darwin Freud or Foucault but
perhaps the course of science is not
determined by such individuals but by
large-scale processes and tendencies in
science itself and in society at large
perhaps our science would have been
pretty much the same if Newton Darwin
Freud and Foucault had never lived
Foucault would agree with that but he
doesn't just want to move away from the
individual subject to explanations that
are at a larger scale involving groups
of individuals he wants to move away
entirely from the level of the
consciousness of subjects well what is
that at the level of our conscious
thinking we have certain beliefs and
desires and we make decisions based on
those historians of science Foucault
points out have mostly been interested
in these conscious phenomena we want to
know why Darwin believed certain things
what his arguments for those beliefs
were why he decided to publish them when
he did what other people there thought
about them and so on
when we write a history of science we
were mostly focused on these conscious
aspects but for Foucault that is a
problem by focusing on the things that
people are conscious of we miss the most
important stuff the unconscious rules
that determine how we think and write
and act let's consider that for a moment
if you want to understand why people
behave in a certain way it is of course
important to know about their conscious
beliefs and desires and decisions I am
making this film about Foucault because
I have decided to do so and I made the
decision because I believe Foucault is a
very interesting thinker and you should
know something about his work if you
want to understand why people behave in
a certain way it is also important and
maybe even more important to look at the
unconscious rules that govern our
behavior there are all kinds of rules
for instance that determine which
thoughts we take seriously enough to
really consider and which ones we don't
before making this film I made a
conscious decision about which shirt to
wear but I did not make the conscious
decision to wear a shirt
rather than appear completely naked why
well it never occurred to me that I
could go here naked and if it had
occurred to me I would have dismissed
that thought without really considering
it why because there is a cultural rule
against nakedness that is incorporated
so deeply into my mind that it affects
me even when I'm not consciously
thinking about it according to Foucault
something like this is also going on in
science in every society and in every
period of time there are unconscious
rules that determine what kinds of
discourse that is what kinds of speech
or writing are taken seriously in
science the vast majority of the time
scientists aren't even aware of these
rules but they do
termen what is and what is not discussed
in any scientific period these rules are
what Foucault calls an AP Stannah so an
AP stemmer is a set of unconscious rules
that govern all serious scientific
discourse in a certain society and time
period and determine what does and does
not get taken seriously by that
scientific community here's an example a
popular kind of book in the Middle Ages
was the best theory an often beautifully
illustrated collection of descriptions
of animals these descriptions were often
coffee pasted from different sources
including the Bible ancient authors and
more recent reports with almost no
critical fact-checking
one major aim of many best Theory
authors was to draw a moral or religious
lesson from every animal because the
idea was that the animal kingdom
Illustrated God's intentions for mankind
these bass theories were taken seriously
as sources of wheat what we can
anachronistically call scientific
knowledge in the Middle Ages but they
would not be taken seriously by a modern
scientist the rules of the medieval ap
stamen allow perhaps even encourage the
scientists to copy his knowledge from
famous authors and to draw moral lessons
from nature the rules of the modern
epistemic on the other hand require all
knowledge to be based on critically
examined observation reports and require
a strict distinction between science and
moralizing a modern biologist wouldn't
even think about drawing a moral lesson
from an animal whereas the medieval
author sees this as perhaps his most
important task wouldn't even think about
it that's the phrase that Foucault wants
to emphasize the epistemic determines
what thoughts we take seriously enough
to really think about we can now see the
important differences between an
epistemic paradigm first a paradigm
consists of stuff that a scientist is
conscience all theories methods concepts
instruments and so on it's the stuff we
are working with and at the stem out on
the other hand involves rules that are
so deeply ingrained in our thinking that
we are hardly aware of them biologists
don't think about how they are not
allowed to draw moral lessons they just
don't draw moral lessons second a
paradigm is specific to a single
scientific discipline there's a paradigm
in linguistics in a very different
paradigm in art history or maybe there's
even a paradigm of historical
linguistics and a paradigm of social
linguistics and so on but an epistemic
is much broader it encompasses all the
scientists if biologists are allowed to
draw moral lessons from nature and so
are ethnographers and physicists and so
on third paradigms don't have to be all
that long lived during a turbulent
period maybe there could be several
paradigm shifts in a century within a
single scientific discipline epistemic
on the other hand change very rarely
according to Foucault there have been
just three epistemic
in European science in the past five
hundred years as you can imagine what an
epistemic does change the impact on
science will be huge in every science at
once the very rules that determine which
ideas and theories are taken seriously
will change Foucault claims that this
happened around 1600 and again around
1800 and if we look at something like
the medieval bestiaries and compare it
to a current textbook on say
evolutionary biology we can imagine how
huge those changes must have been and
who knows maybe another change of a
beast a man lies just around the corner
you
Ver Más Videos Relacionados
5.0 / 5 (0 votes)