Chapter 2.1: Thomas Kuhn, normal science
Summary
TLDRThis script explores the nature of scientific inquiry, contrasting the critical approach of true scientists with the dogmatic stance of pseudo-scientists. It delves into Thomas Kuhn's theory of scientific development, which challenges the notion of perpetual skepticism in science. Kuhn posits that science alternates between phases of normalcy and crisis, with periods of revolutionary change. He introduces the concept of a 'paradigm,' which scientists accept without question during normal science, suggesting that this acceptance, rather than constant criticism, facilitates scientific progress.
Takeaways
- 🔬 Scientists are critical thinkers who base their conclusions on evidence rather than accepting things at face value.
- 🧐 The success of science is attributed to its critical nature, allowing for the swift identification and correction of errors, propelling us towards truth.
- 📚 Karl Popper's falsificationism posits that scientists are dedicated to proving their theories wrong, emphasizing the critical aspect of scientific endeavor.
- 🤔 Thomas Kuhn challenges the notion of perpetual criticality in science, suggesting it's more of an illusion, with critical moments being the exception rather than the rule.
- 📚 Kuhn's historical study of science reveals alternating phases of scientific development rather than a linear progression.
- 🌀 Kuhn identifies four phases in the development of science: pre-paradigm, normal science, crisis, and scientific revolution.
- 🔄 Pre-paradigm phase is unique to the beginning of any scientific discipline, while the other phases can recur multiple times.
- 🌟 Normal science is the usual state, characterized by a well-functioning paradigm that scientists accept without question.
- 🧐 Paradigms consist of theories, ideas, methods, and tools that are taken for granted and are not subject to routine criticism.
- 🛠️ The acceptance of paradigms without criticism is beneficial for scientific progress, as it allows scientists to focus on detailed work without questioning foundational assumptions.
- 🤓 Kuhn suggests that the belief in the critical nature of science may stem from the other phases, which will be discussed in subsequent lectures.
Q & A
What is the general perception of scientists in terms of their critical thinking?
-The general perception is that scientists are critical thinkers who do not simply believe everything they are told but instead seek concrete evidence to form their own conclusions.
Why is the critical nature of scientists considered a key to the success of science?
-The critical nature of scientists is considered key to the success of science because it allows for the swift identification and correction of errors, enabling the progression towards truth without being hindered by misinformation.
What is falsificationism as proposed by Karl Popper?
-Falsificationism, as proposed by Karl Popper, is the idea that scientists should always be trying to prove their own theories wrong, emphasizing a high level of critical thinking and skepticism in the scientific process.
How does Thomas Kuhn's view of science differ from the traditional view of critical thinking in science?
-Thomas Kuhn's view differs by suggesting that the critical nature of science is mostly an illusion and that true critical thinking in science only occurs at specific and exceptional moments in history, rather than being a constant.
What are the phases of scientific development according to Thomas Kuhn?
-According to Thomas Kuhn, the phases of scientific development include the pre-paradigmatic phase, normal science, crisis, and scientific revolution.
What is meant by the term 'pre-paradigmatic phase' in Kuhn's theory?
-The pre-paradigmatic phase refers to the initial stage of a scientific discipline where there is no consensus on the theories and methods, and it is the only phase that occurs once for any scientific discipline.
What is the significance of 'normal science' in Kuhn's framework?
-Normal science is the usual state of scientific disciplines when there is a well-functioning paradigm that scientists are confident about and take for granted without being critical.
What is a 'paradigm' in the context of Kuhn's theory?
-A paradigm, in Kuhn's theory, refers to the set of theories, ideas, concepts, methods, and measuring instruments that a scientific discipline takes for granted and does not question during normal science.
Why does Kuhn argue that the lack of criticism towards the paradigm during normal science is beneficial?
-Kuhn argues that the lack of criticism towards the paradigm is beneficial because it allows scientists to focus on detailed work and make progress without being bogged down by questioning fundamental assumptions.
What are the other three phases of science that Kuhn discusses, and how do they relate to the perception of science being critical?
-The other three phases Kuhn discusses are crisis, scientific revolution, and a return to normal science. These phases are where critical thinking becomes more apparent, challenging existing paradigms and leading to shifts in scientific understanding.
Outlines
🔬 The Critical Nature of Science and Paradigms
This paragraph discusses the critical thinking inherent in the scientific method, emphasizing that scientists seek evidence rather than blindly accepting theories. It introduces Karl Popper's falsificationism, which posits that scientists aim to prove their theories wrong, contrasting this with pseudo-scientists who protect their theories. Thomas Kuhn's theory of science is presented as a challenge to the idea of constant scientific criticism, suggesting that true critical periods in science are rare and occur only during specific historical moments. Kuhn's concept of paradigms and normal science is introduced, explaining that scientific disciplines operate under a set of accepted theories and methods, or paradigms, which are not typically questioned during normal science.
📚 Paradigms and the Illusion of Scientific Critique
The second paragraph delves deeper into Kuhn's concept of paradigms, explaining that during normal science, scientists operate under a paradigm that they do not question. This paradigm includes theories, ideas, concepts, methods, and instruments that are taken for granted. Kuhn argues that this lack of criticism towards the paradigm is not only common but also necessary for scientific progress, as it allows scientists to focus on detailed work and make advancements. The paragraph also highlights that the belief in the critical nature of science is often mistaken, as it overlooks the periods of normal science where such criticism is absent. Kuhn's view is that the illusion of constant critique arises primarily during the less common phases of crisis and scientific revolution, which will be discussed in subsequent lectures.
Mindmap
Keywords
💡Critical Thinking
💡Falsificationism
💡Pseudoscience
💡Thomas Kuhn
💡Paradigm
💡Normal Science
💡Pre-paradigmatic Phase
💡Crisis
💡Scientific Revolution
💡Progress
💡Anomalies
Highlights
Scientists are critical thinkers who base their conclusions on evidence rather than accepting claims at face value.
The critical nature of scientists contributes to the success of science by allowing for the quick identification and correction of errors.
Karl Popper's falsificationism posits that scientists aim to prove their theories wrong, emphasizing the critical approach in science.
Pseudo scientists are contrasted with true scientists by their protective attitude towards their theories, lacking critical evaluation.
Thomas Kuhn challenges the idea of science as always critical, suggesting it's mostly an illusion.
Kuhn's view is that science is not typically critical except during specific, exceptional historical moments.
Kuhn's theory is based on his work as a historian of science, identifying patterns in the history of scientific development.
Kuhn identified four phases in the development of science: pre-paradigm, normal science, crisis, and scientific revolution.
Pre-paradigm phase is unique to each scientific discipline and does not recur once normal science is established.
Normal science is characterized by a well-functioning paradigm that scientists accept without question.
A paradigm consists of theories, ideas, concepts, and methods that a scientific community takes for granted.
During normal science, scientists are not critical of the paradigm, considering it a waste of time to question it.
The acceptance of a paradigm allows scientists to focus on detailed work and make progress in their field.
Kuhn argues that the lack of criticism towards the paradigm is beneficial for scientific progress.
The belief in the critical nature of science may stem from the other phases, which will be discussed in the next lecture.
Kuhn's theory provides a nuanced view of scientific progress, challenging the simplistic view of constant criticism.
Transcripts
[Music]
our scientists critical we often think
that they are scientists don't just
believe everything they are told instead
they want to see cold hard evidence and
they will come to their own conclusions
based on what they see furthermore that
is precisely because scientists are so
critical that science is so successful
because we take nothing for granted in
science we can quickly discover and get
rid of any errors and that allows us to
leave those errors behind and march on
towards the truth this idea of the
scientist as a critical thinker is so
deeply ingrained in our conception of
science that the Austrian philosopher
Karl Popper even turned it into the key
component of his theory of science
according to poppers falsification ISM
scientists are always busy trying to
prove their own theories wrong they are
very critical
indeed pseudo scientists on the other
hand are always trying to protect their
theories they are not critical at all
so for popper being critical is like a
definition of being a scientist and many
people agreed with his idea but not
everyone Thomas Kuhn an American
physicist historian and philosopher of
science developed an extremely
influential account of science according
to which the idea that science is
critical is mostly an illusion or to be
more precise it is an illusion most of
the time most of the time Kuhn argues
science isn't very critical at all it's
only at specific and exceptional moments
in history that science becomes critical
so if we believe that science is always
critical
we are mistaking the exception for the
rule in these lectures we're going to
delve into that Coons theory is based on
his own work as a historian of science
when Kuhn studied the history of science
he didn't see a cure
succession of events instead what he saw
was a kind of pattern of alternating
phases of different kinds of science
that happened at different moments and
which followed each other in a standard
way
according to Kuhn you could see this
pattern everywhere in all the sciences
or least all Natural Sciences and
throughout history so what are the
phases that Kuhn identified there is
first the pre paradigmatic face and I'm
going to explain the meaning of these
terms later on second there is the face
that Kuhn calls normal science third
there is the face of crisis and fourth
there's the face of scientific
revolution every science Kuhn tells us
starts in a pre paradigmatic phase at
some point it will move on to the face
of normal science once that has happened
that scientific discipline will never
return to the first phase so pre
paradigmatic science happens only once
for any scientific discipline the other
three phases however will occur many
times from a phase of normal science we
can move to a face of crisis from a face
of crisis we will return either to
normal science or go on to a scientific
revolution and from the face of
scientific revolution we will always go
back to normal science normal science
really is the usual state of things
it's the face that we are in most of the
time and that we always return to so to
understand Kuhns theory we first need to
understand what normal Sciences that
means I'm going to skip over the pre
paradigmatic phase for now and focus on
normal science in this lecture in the
next lecture we will talk about the
other phases Koons key insight is that
although scientists are usually critical
about new ideas and cutting-edge
theories there is also a lot that
scientists are not critical about every
scientific discipline Kuhn says has a
huge
of theories ideas concepts methods
measuring instruments and so on that all
the scientists in that field simply take
for granted they are never critical
about them and they generally don't even
discuss them so to take an example from
the Natural Sciences biologists nowaday
all take for granted the idea that our
bodies consists of cells that these
cells contain DNA and that this DNA
contains the genetic information that
determines at least to a certain extent
what we look like and how we act they
also take for granted that the
microscope is a good measuring
instrument the modern chemistry gives us
a correct account of molecular reactions
and so on or to take an example from the
humanities every modern historian takes
for granted that Julius Caesar was
killed in 44 BC that Rome became an
empire soon after that that Roman
historians like Livy are not always
accurate that if the claims of such a
historian are contradicted by
archaeological evidence the
archaeological evidence should generally
be thought of as more reliable than our
standard Latin dictionaries and grammars
are mostly correct and therefore good
tools for translating inscriptions and
so on all these things theories concepts
methods whatever that a scientific
discipline takes for granted is what
cooed calls a paradigm paradigm that's a
very important concept normal science is
by definition that face of a scientific
discipline when there is a
well-functioning
paradigm that is a paradigm that the
scientists in that discipline are
confident about as the historian will be
confident about everything I have just
been enumerated now Kuhn goes on to make
two important points about paradigms
during normal science first he points
out that they consist of things the
scientist don't just take for granted
but that it don't even
to be critical about scientists believe
that it would just be a waste of time to
be critical about the paradigm imagine
the reaction of a historian if you told
her that maybe Julius Caesar didn't
really die in 44 BC but that he survived
the attempted assassination and then
went on a long and seek for a journey to
China or if you told her that maybe our
Latin dictionaries are completely wrong
and that every Roman text we have means
something utterly different from what we
think it means she would not be very
interested in pursuing those ideas she
would just roll her eyes and get on with
serious work
you could never write your BA thesis
about such a hypothesis so we see that
during a phase of normal science people
are not interested in being critical
about the paradigm second Kuhn points
out that this is a good thing it is only
because we take so much for granted that
we can get any detailed work done in
science if a historian couldn't trust
the archaeologists and the dictionaries
and if she had to question all the basic
facts of her discipline all the time
that she would never be able to make
much progress we can only answer
detailed questions about history or
about any other subject because we can
take a large theoretical and
methodological background for granted it
is only that because there is so much we
don't have to think about that we can
really focus our thoughts on the single
question before us so let us return to
the question of whether scientists are
critical according to Kuhn they're not
all that critical because they don't
criticize their paradigm there's a lot
of stuff that scientists just take for
granted just like there's a lot that you
as students are simply taught as the
facts and not supposed to be critical
about and Kuhn goes on to say that this
is good because if we were being
critical all the time we could never get
any word
work done and there would be no
scientific progress but if that's true
why do we nevertheless believe that
science is critical according to kuhn
that has to do with the other three
phases of science which we'll talk about
in the next lecture
you
Browse More Related Video
5.0 / 5 (0 votes)