The Structure of Scientific Revolutions - Thomas Kuhn
Summary
TLDRThomas Kuhn's 'The Structure of Scientific Revolutions' outlines a paradigm-based model of scientific progress. It describes three phases: the pre-paradigm phase marked by competing theories, the paradigm phase or 'normal science' where a consensus theory guides research, and the revolutionary phase triggered by persistent anomalies. Kuhn argues that scientific development is not linear but cyclical, with periods of normal science punctuated by paradigm shifts, often driven by newcomers to the field. This theory challenges the traditional view of science as a steady accumulation of knowledge.
Takeaways
- 📚 Thomas Kuhn's 'The Structure of Scientific Revolutions' is a landmark book that has significantly influenced and sparked debates in the 20th century.
- 🌐 The term 'paradigm', popularized by Kuhn, refers to a set of practices that define a scientific discipline during a particular period.
- 🔄 Kuhn outlines three stages in the development of a scientific field: pre-paradigm, normal science (paradigm phase), and revolutionary science (extraordinary phase).
- 🚀 In the pre-paradigm phase, there's no consensus on a single paradigm, leading to slow progress and a focus on foundational debates.
- 🌟 Newton's 'Optiks' is highlighted as a pivotal work that unified the field of physical optics, moving it from pre-paradigm to normal science.
- 🔬 Normal science is characterized by puzzle-solving within the accepted paradigm, aiming to confirm and extend the paradigmatic theory.
- ⚠️ Anomalies, or unexpected findings, can lead to crises if they persistently challenge the existing paradigm without a satisfactory explanation.
- 🔮 Revolutionary science emerges during crises, where new theories are proposed to resolve the anomalies, potentially leading to a paradigm shift.
- 🧠 Paradigm shifts are often driven by younger or newcomers to the field who are less indoctrinated by the old paradigm, allowing for fresh perspectives.
- 📉 Resistance to new paradigms is common among established scientists, but over time, the new generation adopts the new paradigm, as noted by Max Planck.
- 🔁 Kuhn's model suggests a cyclical nature of scientific progress, with each paradigm shift setting the stage for new normal science, anomalies, and future revolutions.
Q & A
What is Thomas Kuhn's most famous work?
-Thomas Kuhn's most famous work is 'The Structure of Scientific Revolutions'.
What is the significance of the term 'paradigm' in Kuhn's work?
-In Kuhn's work, the term 'paradigm' refers to a set of practices that define a scientific discipline during a particular period of time, including the theories, methods, and standards of research.
What are the three modes of scientific development according to Kuhn?
-The three modes of scientific development according to Kuhn are: the pre-paradigm phase, the paradigm phase (also known as normal science), and the revolutionary or extraordinary phase.
What characterizes the pre-paradigm phase in a scientific field?
-The pre-paradigm phase is characterized by the lack of a consensus paradigm, with competing theories and little progress due to the need for scientists to argue over fundamental principles.
How does Kuhn describe the transition from pre-paradigm to paradigm phase?
-Kuhn describes the transition from pre-paradigm to paradigm phase as a result of the emergence of a theory with greater explanatory power that unifies the field under one paradigm, leading to the establishment of normal science.
What is 'normal science' according to Kuhn?
-'Normal science' according to Kuhn is the work conducted within a paradigm, where scientists take the foundational theories for granted and focus on solving puzzles and expanding the paradigmatic theory.
What are anomalies in the context of Kuhn's model?
-Anomalies, in Kuhn's model, are unexpected novelties or data that cannot be explained by the current paradigm, which may lead to a crisis and potentially a paradigm shift.
What happens during a scientific crisis according to Kuhn?
-During a scientific crisis, the anomalies become insoluble within the current paradigm, leading to a period of intense debate and experimentation, often resulting in the emergence of a new paradigm.
Who are the typical agents of paradigm shift according to Kuhn?
-According to Kuhn, the typical agents of paradigm shift are often young scientists or those new to the field who have not been fully indoctrinated into the old paradigm and can bring fresh perspectives.
How does Kuhn explain the resistance to new paradigms by the old guard?
-Kuhn explains that the old guard resists new paradigms because they are either too deeply immersed in or too invested in the old paradigm, often continuing to defend it even after a new paradigm has emerged.
What does Kuhn suggest about the process of scientific progress?
-Kuhn suggests that scientific progress is not a linear accumulation of knowledge but a cyclical process involving periods of normal science punctuated by revolutionary shifts in paradigms.
Outlines
🔬 The Structure of Scientific Revolutions Overview
This paragraph introduces Thomas Kuhn's influential book 'The Structure of Scientific Revolutions' and discusses the concept of paradigms in scientific development. Kuhn's model of scientific history includes three phases: pre-paradigm, paradigm (normal science), and revolutionary or extraordinary science. The pre-paradigm phase is characterized by the absence of a consensus paradigm, leading to slow progress as scientists argue over fundamentals. Kuhn uses the historical development of physical optics as an example, illustrating how the field was fragmented with competing paradigms before Newton's work unified it under a single paradigm. This unity marked the transition to normal science, where the field becomes esoteric and progresses through puzzle-solving within the established paradigm.
🌌 The Dynamics of Normal and Revolutionary Science
The second paragraph delves into the nature of normal science, where scientists work within an accepted paradigm, seeking to solve puzzles and confirm the paradigm's validity rather than seeking novelty. However, anomalies that cannot be explained by the current paradigm emerge, leading to a crisis. Kuhn describes how these anomalies, if unresolved, can lead to a paradigm shift. During a crisis, the field may revert to a pre-paradigm state with competing theories. Revolutionary science involves new types of experimentation and thought processes to address these anomalies. The resolution of a crisis often comes from individuals who are either new to the field or not fully indoctrinated by the old paradigm, as they can bring fresh perspectives. Kuhn notes that the old guard may resist the new paradigm, but eventually, it is adopted as the new generation grows familiar with it.
🔄 The Cyclical Nature of Scientific Progress
The final paragraph summarizes Kuhn's theory of the cyclical nature of scientific revolutions. It outlines how each scientific field begins without a paradigm, then moves into normal science once a consensus paradigm is established. As scientists work within this paradigm, they encounter anomalies that may lead to crises and, if unresolved, prompt a paradigm shift. This shift is often driven by individuals who are not constrained by the old paradigm, leading to a new consensus and a return to normal science. The cycle continues as new anomalies inevitably arise, potentially leading to future crises and paradigm shifts. The paragraph concludes with an invitation to the next episode, which will explore criticisms and the legacy of Kuhn's work, and a call to action for viewers to engage with the content through likes and Patreon support.
Mindmap
Keywords
💡Paradigm
💡Normal Science
💡Anomaly
💡Scientific Revolution
💡Pre-paradigm Phase
💡Esotericisation
💡Crisis
💡Puzzle-Solving
💡Paradigm Shift
💡Revolutionary Science
Highlights
Thomas Kuhn's 'The Structure of Scientific Revolutions' is a highly influential and controversial book of the 20th century.
The concept of 'paradigm' has deeply penetrated various cultural layers due to Kuhn's work.
Kuhn's model outlines three phases in scientific fields: pre-paradigm, paradigm (normal science), and revolutionary phases.
In the pre-paradigm phase, there is no consensus on a single paradigm, leading to slow progress.
Kuhn uses the development of physical optics as an example of the pre-paradigm phase.
The paradigmatic phase, or normal science, begins when a theory with strong explanatory power gains consensus.
Normal science is characterized by puzzle-solving within the accepted paradigm.
Anomalies, or unexpected findings, can lead to crises if they cannot be resolved by the current paradigm.
Crises in science can lead to revolutionary science, where new theories are proposed.
The resolution of a crisis often results from the invention of a new paradigm by an individual, marking a paradigm shift.
Those who bring about paradigm shifts are often young or new to the field, as they are less indoctrinated by the old paradigm.
Older scientists may resist new paradigms, clinging to the established theories they are familiar with.
Kuhn suggests that science progresses as older generations retire or pass away, and new generations grow up familiar with new paradigms.
The cycle of scientific revolutions is continuous, with new paradigms leading to normal science, which in turn uncovers new anomalies and crises.
Kuhn's theory provides a framework for understanding the evolution of scientific thought and the role of paradigms in shaping scientific progress.
Transcripts
Thomas Kuhn's book The Structure of Scientific Revolutions is one of the most
influential and controversial works of the 20th century. In the first episode of this
series on Kuhn's seminal work, we talked about the word paradigm which has
penetrated every layer of the culture all thanks to this work of Kuhn.
In this episode we are going to look the role of paradigms in the development of
science and we are going to talk about the eponymous structure of scientific
revolutions.
In the Kuhnian model of scientific history there are three modes that a scientific field
can be in: there's the pre-paradigm phase, the paradigm phase also known as normal
science and finally the revolutionary or extraordinary phase.
Kuhn calls the first stage of a science the pre-paradigm phase. During this phase, there
is no paradigm that has gained consensus in the field; there may be a number of
competing paradigms that vie for support but as of yet no single paradigm has united
the field under one banner and one research project.
Because of this, there is little progress made. Every scientist must start again at the
fundamentals - they must argue why they have chosen the paradigm they have
chosen. Kuhn illustrates this
by taking the development of the scientific field of study of light
called physical optics. He explains that before Newton's seminal work Optiks, there
were a number of competing paradigms: the Aristotelian, the Platonic and the
Epicurean each of which could explain some phenomena but none of which had
greater explanatory power than any of the others. He writes:
Being able to take no common body of belief for granted, each writer on
physical optics felt forced to build his field anew from its foundations. In
doing so, his choice of supporting observation and experiment was
relatively free, for there was no standard set of methods or of
phenomena that every optical writer felt forced to employ and explain.
Under these circumstances, the dialogue of the resulting books was often
directed as much to the members of other schools as it was to nature.
That pattern is not unfamiliar in a number of creative fields today, nor is
it incompatible with significant discovery and invention. It is not,
however, the pattern of development that physical optics acquired after
Newton and that other natural sciences make familiar today.
In this pre-paradigm phase, the science has not yet become an esoteric silo in which
the members of the field communicate exclusively to each other in the increasingly
specialised nomenclature of their specialisation.
As such the field doesn't progress and must wait for some discovery or some bright
mind to give rise to a theory with explanatory power that goes beyond any of the other
schools and which unifies the field under one paradigm.
When this does happen, the science enters its second phase as the field of physical
optics did with the work of Newton. This second phase is the paradigmatic phase of
normal science.
With the emergence of a theory with incomparable explanatory power, the field enters
its second phase which is its first stage as a science proper. As Kuhn says of the pre-
paradigm phase when remarking on the field of optics:
anyone examining a survey of physical optics before Newton may well
conclude that, though the field's practitioners were scientists, the net
result of their activity was something less than science.
With the emergence of the consensus establishing paradigm, the field becomes a
science proper. With this the field enters the stage of what Kuhn calls 'normal science'.
At this stage, scientists no longer have debates over first principles. They don't argue
about the nature of the field of study or about the correct methods or objects of study.
With the consensus that has gathered around the paradigmatic theory, scientists can
begin to take a certain amount of knowledge as foundational.
This is the beginning of what Kuhn calls the esotericisation of science. Scientists begin
to speak with each other in specialised journals and develop their own distinctive
terminology. There is no longer the need to speak in a way that is popularly
understandable since the status of the paradigm is now established.
Thus begins the work of normal science. The nature of normal science is, as we
covered in the previous episode, puzzle-solving. The scientists take the paradigmatic
theory for granted and begin to work on the puzzles suggested by this theory. For
example, there may be universal constants of quantitative laws invoked by the
paradigmatic theory whose precise measures haven't been established. It may employ
approximations that could be improved or suggest other puzzles of the same kind.
These are some of the types of further study that a paradigmatic theory orients
scientists towards. The science that takes place within a paradigm
is called normal science by Kuhn and it has the interesting trait according to Kuhn
that it does not seek novelty. Normal science is not seeking out unknowns. It is
seeking to test and extend the realm of the paradigm. What scientists are looking for in
the puzzle-solving of normal science is confirmation of the paradigmatic theory.
Novelty is undesirable because it does not fit in the model and so scientists don't
quite know what to do with it. But inevitably, scientists run into
these novelties. Kuhn calls these unexpected novelties anomalies and they are the entryway
to the third stage of a science - revolutionary or extraordinary science.
As normal science goes about the business of articulating and expanding its
paradigmatic theory, it encounters data that according to the paradigm it shouldn't. At
first this data is dismissed as being the result of a bad experiment or it is held lightly as
needing further explanation. But, as this anomaly in the data continues
to recur, it draws more and more attention in the field. Most of the time, these anomalies
succumb to the concentrated efforts of the scientists in the field.
One of Kuhn's examples of this comes from the century after Newton when scientists
struggled to reconcile their observations of the moon's motion with the predictions
derived from Newton's laws of motion and gravitation. Try as they might, they
couldn't reconcile the observations with the theory and many scientists suggested
adjustments to Newton's laws - which as Kuhn observed would have changed the
paradigm and defined a new puzzle but after much persistence, scientists preserved
the rules and in 1750 a scientist called Clairaut was able to show that it was only the
Maths that was wrong and Newton's theory could stand as before.
This example captures the first stages of the revolutionary process: an anomaly is
observed and can't be easily explained away. As the anomaly persists and still doesn't
succumb to the increased effort of the community to solve it, some suggest changing
the paradigm. In this Newtonian case, the puzzle was finally solved without the need
for a change.
But this doesn't always happen. And when it fails to be resolved, the anomaly
precipitates what Kuhn calls a crisis. The anomaly proves insoluble within the
confines of the paradigm and the field finds itself in a state of crisis.
As this crisis becomes more acute, we find the field becoming more and more akin to
the pre-paradigm state. The rules and fundamentals that had been implicit and taken
for granted so long as the paradigm reigned, now become articulated. But we find that
this articulation is far from homogenous and a number of different versions of the
theory emerge. During this period of crisis we see the
emergence of a new type of science that Kuhn calls revolutionary science or extraordinary
science. At this time certain scientists begin a different type of experimentation
in which they attempt to amplify and identify the structure of the anomaly.
Kuhn tells us that the thought experiment begins to play a role at this time.
Ultimately the crisis is brought to a resolution when such an individual invents the
solution and so births a new paradigm which reorients the field. This is the so-called
paradigm shift - the whole field is regathered around this revolutionary new
paradigm that reorients the field and sets it in motion once again after being churned
up by the crisis inducing anomaly. These paradigm-shifting individuals, Kuhn
tells us, fall into two categories: either they are young or else they are new to the field.
The reason for this is transparent enough: the individual needs to be green enough that
they haven't been fully indoctrinated into the old paradigm. While they have a deep
understanding of the field, they also crucially have a fresh enough perspective
that they can form alternative understandings.
The old guard are either too deeply immersed in the paradigm or too invested in it.
Even when the new paradigm has emerged, many of the old guard will not adopt it.
They will stick with the paradigm they know and attack the new one.
One notable example of this is of the famous English astronomer Fred Hoyle who
coined the term Big Bang in 1949 as a disparaging dismissal of the theory. Even up to
his death in 2001 he still refused to believe in the Big Bang having written that:
"The reason why scientists like the "big bang" is because they are
overshadowed by the Book of Genesis. It is deep within the psyche of
most scientists to believe in the first page of Genesis"
And so the new paradigm is not necessarily adapted by all in the field but wins out
over time. As the great originator of quantum theory Max Planck put it:
"A new scientific truth does not triumph by convincing its
opponents and making them see the light, but rather because its
opponents eventually die, and a new generation grows up that is
familiar with it." Or as the popular version of this saying goes:
"Science progresses one funeral at a time" With the maturation of a new generation,
the dust has settled. The revolution is complete and the vast majority of
scientists are now working within the new paradigm. And with that the cycle is complete:
the revolutionary science has birthed a new paradigm which enables the field
to move back into normal science. This then is Kuhn's structure of scientific
revolutions. Every science starts out in a pre- paradigmatic state before the birth of its first
paradigm. With the emergence of this first paradigmatic theory, the field achieves
a consensus that starts the esotericisation of the field whereby the scientists can take the
fundamentals for granted and so begins the work of normal science.
This normal science works at articulating and elaborating the paradigmatic theory and
in the process of doing so it encounters counterinstances - unexpected novelties in
the data. These novelties become anomalies which in turn become crises if no solution
is forthcoming from the old theory. And this crisis spurs on revolutionary
or extraordinary science which ultimately gives rise to a new paradigm. And with this new paradigm
the cycle begins again: the field returns to the work of normal science
and inevitably this turns up new anomalies which lead to new crises and new paradigms
and so the cycle goes on ad infinitum. That in brief is Kuhn's theory of the Structure
of Scientific Revolutions and that is everything that we have time for on this
episode of the living philosophy. On the next episode we are going to explore the criticisms
and the legacy of Kuhn's work. In the meantime if you enjoyed the video be sure
to leave us a like down below and if you really liked the video be sure to head over
to Patreon where you can support the channel and get your name in the credits
like these wonderful people who have supporters of the channel. As ever if you
have any thoughts insights or feedback I'd love to hear from you down in the comments
otherwise I shall see you next time thanks for watching.
Посмотреть больше похожих видео
5.0 / 5 (0 votes)