Chapter 2.2: Thomas Kuhn, scientific revolutions

Summary

This lecture delves into Thomas Kuhn's theory of scientific development, highlighting four phases: pre-paradigmatic, normal science, crisis, and scientific revolution. It emphasizes the paradigm as the foundation of normal science, where scientists operate within accepted theories and methods. The pre-paradigmatic phase is marked by a lack of consensus, leading to individual pursuits and limited collaboration. Anomalies can trigger a crisis, prompting a shift towards new paradigms or a return to normal science. Kuhn argues that while scientific revolutions are dramatic, normal science is the rule, with most scientific work done within a stable paradigm.

Takeaways

• 🌟 Thomas Kuhn's model identifies four phases in the historical development of science: pre-paradigmatic, normal science, crisis, and scientific revolution.
• 🔬 Normal science is characterized by the existence of a paradigm, which includes shared theories, concepts, and methods within a scientific community.
• 🤔 In the pre-paradigmatic phase, there is no shared understanding; scientists work independently and communication is challenging due to the lack of a common vocabulary.
• 🛠 The pre-paradigmatic phase is considered less productive by Kuhn because of the inability of scientists to collaborate effectively.
• 🌱 The emergence of a dominant set of theories and methods marks the transition from pre-paradigmatic to normal science, allowing for collective problem-solving within a shared framework.
• 🔍 An anomaly is a problem that current paradigms cannot solve, but Kuhn argues that anomalies do not necessarily undermine a paradigm if scientists remain confident in their eventual resolution.
• 💥 A crisis arises when the number of unresolved anomalies grows and scientists begin to doubt the efficacy of the current paradigm, leading to a search for new ideas.
• 🔄 A crisis can be resolved by either resolving key anomalies within the existing paradigm, restoring confidence, or by embracing a new paradigm that addresses these issues.
• 🆕 A scientific revolution, or paradigm shift, occurs when a new paradigm is accepted and the old one is abandoned, leading to a fundamental change in scientific thinking.
• 🔑 Kuhn emphasizes that while scientific revolutions are dramatic and noticeable, normal science is the rule, where most scientific work is done within a stable paradigm.
• 📚 Kuhn's model challenges traditional views of science as a purely critical and revolutionary activity, highlighting the importance of stability and puzzle-solving in normal science.

Q & A

What are the four phases of scientific development according to Thomas Kuhn?

The four phases are the pre-paradigmatic phase, normal science, crisis, and scientific revolution.

What is the defining characteristic of normal science as per Kuhn's view?

Normal science is characterized by the existence of a paradigm, which consists of all the theories, concepts, and methods that a scientific discipline takes for granted.

What is the pre-paradigmatic phase in Kuhn's framework?

The pre-paradigmatic phase is the initial stage of a scientific discipline where there is no shared set of concepts, theories, and methods among scientists.

How do scientists typically behave during the pre-paradigmatic phase?

In the pre-paradigmatic phase, scientists generally pursue their own ideas, have different background assumptions, and often argue about the superiority of their own concepts, theories, and methods.

Why does Kuhn consider the pre-paradigmatic phase to be unproductive?

Kuhn considers the pre-paradigmatic phase unproductive because scientists cannot work together effectively, and they are unable to build on each other's results, often starting from scratch.

What is the role of a paradigm in normal science?

A paradigm in normal science provides a shared framework of theories, concepts, and methods that scientists trust and work within to solve scientific puzzles without being critical of the paradigm itself.

What is an anomaly in the context of Kuhn's theory?

An anomaly is a problem or observation that does not fit within the current paradigm, which scientists are currently unable to solve or explain.

How does Kuhn view the existence of anomalies within a scientific paradigm?

Kuhn believes that the existence of anomalies is not a problem for a scientific paradigm as long as scientists remain confident that they will be resolved in due time.

What is a crisis in Kuhn's model of scientific development?

A crisis occurs when the number of anomalies grows and scientists start to doubt the ability of the current paradigm to solve them, leading to a loss of confidence in the paradigm.

What are the two possible outcomes of a crisis in Kuhn's theory?

The two possible outcomes of a crisis are the resolution of key anomalies within the current paradigm, restoring confidence and returning to normal science, or the emergence and acceptance of a new paradigm leading to a scientific revolution.

What is a scientific revolution or paradigm shift according to Kuhn?

A scientific revolution or paradigm shift is a dramatic change in science where one way of thinking is abandoned and an entirely different way of thinking is accepted, often defining a scientific discipline for decades or centuries.

Why does Kuhn argue that scientific revolutions are the exception rather than the rule?

Kuhn argues that scientific revolutions are the exception because the majority of scientific work is done during normal science within a stable paradigm, and revolutions occur only when normal science gets stuck.

Outlines

00:00

🔬 The Phases of Scientific Development

This paragraph introduces Thomas Kuhn's theory of the historical development of science, highlighting four distinct phases: pre-paradigmatic, normal science, crisis, and scientific revolution. It emphasizes the concept of 'normal science' where scientists operate within an accepted paradigm, trusting its theories and methods without critical examination. The paragraph also briefly touches on the pre-paradigmatic phase, where disciplines lack shared concepts and methods, leading to individualistic and often unproductive scientific endeavors. The summary sets the stage for a deeper exploration of the subsequent phases and the dynamics of scientific progress.

05:04

🤔 The Crisis and Revolution in Scientific Paradigms

The second paragraph delves into the later stages of Kuhn's model: the crisis and scientific revolution. It explains how an accumulation of unresolved anomalies can lead to a crisis of confidence in the existing paradigm. During this phase, scientists become more critical and open to new ideas, potentially leading to a paradigm shift. The paragraph outlines two outcomes of a crisis: either the resolution of anomalies within the current paradigm, restoring normal science, or the emergence and acceptance of a new paradigm, resulting in a scientific revolution. This revolution marks a significant shift in scientific thought and practice, with Kuhn arguing that such events, while dramatic, are exceptions to the rule of normal science, which is characterized by stability and puzzle-solving within an established paradigm.

Keywords

💡Thomas Kuhn

Thomas Kuhn is a philosopher of science known for his influential work 'The Structure of Scientific Revolutions,' where he introduced the concept of paradigm shifts in the development of scientific thought. In the video, Kuhn's ideas are central to understanding the historical phases of scientific progress, including the shift from one dominant scientific view to another.

💡Paradigm

A paradigm in the context of the video refers to a set of practices that define a scientific discipline during a particular period of normal science. It includes the theories, concepts, and methods that are taken for granted by scientists. The video explains that during normal science, scientists operate within a paradigm without questioning its fundamental assumptions.

💡Normal Science

Normal science is a phase described by Kuhn where scientific work is conducted within an accepted paradigm. The video emphasizes that during this phase, scientists focus on solving puzzles and addressing anomalies within the established framework of the paradigm, trusting its validity and not engaging in fundamental critique.

💡Pre-paradigmatic Phase

The pre-paradigmatic phase is the initial stage in the development of a scientific discipline, where there is no consensus on theories, concepts, or methods. As mentioned in the video, this phase is characterized by individual scientists pursuing diverse and often incompatible ideas, leading to difficulties in communication and collaboration.

💡Anomaly

An anomaly, as discussed in the video, is an observation or problem that does not fit within the current paradigm. While Popper viewed anomalies as falsifications that necessitate the rejection of theories, Kuhn suggested that anomalies are a natural part of scientific progress and can lead to a crisis if they accumulate without resolution.

💡Crisis

A crisis in Kuhn's model is a phase where the confidence in the existing paradigm wanes due to the inability to resolve a growing number of anomalies. The video describes this as a period of doubt and critical examination of the paradigm, potentially leading to a shift in scientific thinking.

💡Scientific Revolution

A scientific revolution, as portrayed in the video, is a dramatic shift in scientific thought where an old paradigm is abandoned in favor of a new one. This phase is marked by a paradigm shift and is characterized by the acceptance of new theories, concepts, and methods that address previously unresolved anomalies.

💡Paradigm Shift

A paradigm shift is the process of moving from one paradigm to another, as explained in the video. It is a fundamental change in the underlying assumptions and practices of a scientific discipline, often triggered by a scientific revolution.

💡Incommensurability

Although not explicitly defined in the provided script, incommensurability is a concept associated with Kuhn's work that refers to the difficulty in comparing scientific theories across different paradigms due to their fundamentally different assumptions and concepts. It suggests that progress in science is not always linear or cumulative.

💡Popper

Karl Popper is a philosopher of science known for his concept of falsification, which is briefly contrasted with Kuhn's view on anomalies in the video. Popper believed that scientific theories should be tested rigorously and discarded if they are falsified by empirical evidence, whereas Kuhn emphasized the role of anomalies in the evolution of scientific thought.

💡Scientific Progress

Scientific progress, as discussed in the video, is a contentious topic in Kuhn's model. While it is often associated with the advancement of knowledge and the resolution of scientific problems, Kuhn's ideas suggest that progress can also involve the abandonment of old paradigms and the acceptance of new, potentially incompatible, ways of thinking.

Highlights

Thomas Kuhn's theory on the historical development of science includes four phases: pre-paradigmatic, normal science, crisis, and scientific revolution.

Normal science is characterized by the existence of a paradigm, which consists of accepted theories, concepts, and methods within a scientific discipline.

In the pre-paradigmatic phase, there is no shared scientific consensus, leading to diverse and often incompatible scientific approaches.

The pre-paradigmatic phase is marked by individual scientists pursuing their own ideas and struggling to communicate due to a lack of shared vocabulary.

Kuhn suggests that pre-paradigmatic science is less productive due to the inability of scientists to build upon each other's work.

The transition from pre-paradigmatic to normal science occurs when a dominant set of theories and methods is accepted by the scientific community.

An anomaly is a problem that cannot be solved within the current paradigm, challenging the existing theories but not necessarily falsifying them.

Kuhn views anomalies as a normal part of scientific disciplines, with the assumption that they will be resolved in the future.

A crisis phase is reached when the number of unresolved anomalies grows and scientists begin to doubt the current paradigm's effectiveness.

During a crisis, scientists become more critical and open to radical new ideas, potentially leading to a paradigm shift.

Ending a crisis can either restore confidence in the current paradigm by solving key anomalies or lead to a scientific revolution with a new paradigm.

A scientific revolution, or paradigm shift, is a dramatic change in scientific thinking, where one way of understanding is replaced by a completely different one.

Kuhn argues that scientific revolutions are the exception rather than the rule, with normal science being the predominant mode of scientific work.

The concept of a paradigm and the interplay between normal science and revolutions provide a framework for understanding the dynamics of scientific progress.

Kuhn's theory has been influential in shaping the understanding of science, though it also raises questions about scientific progress and incommensurability.

The lecture will continue to explore Kuhn's ideas on scientific progress and the concept of incommensurability in the next session.

Transcripts

[Music]

in the previous lecture we looked at

Thomas Kuhns idea about the historical

development of science just to remind

ourselves Kuhn distinguishes four phases

there is first the pre paradigmatic

phase second normal science third crisis

and fourth scientific revolution we

focused on normal science in a previous

lecture and we learned that according to

Kuhn normal science is defined by the

existence of a paradigm a paradigm

consists of all the theories concepts

methods and so on that a scientific

discipline takes for granted during

normal science which is basically

science as we all know and learn it

scientists trust this paradigm and the

main scientific activity can be seen as

solving scientific puzzles within the

rules of the paradigm during this phase

scientists are not critical about the

paradigm itself they simply take it for

granted so what about the other phases

let's start with the first phase the pre

paradigmatic phase as the name indicates

this is the phase before there is a

paradigm every scientific discipline

starts out without any shared concepts

theories and methods those still have to

be thought up and developed by the

scientists the first historians didn't

agree about the right way to write

history the first physicists didn't know

what the right concepts were to talk

about nature

the first linguists didn't have any

generally accepted linguistic theories

and so on since there is no set of

shared concepts theories and methods

individual scientists in the pre

paradigmatic phase will generally do

very different things

they have different background

assumptions do different kinds of

measurement have very different ideas

about which problems are worth

investigating and so on it's also very

hard of them to communicate because they

don't have a shared technical vocabulary

they never really know whether they're

all talking about the same thing in such

circumstances it is almost impossible

for scientists to work together rather

everyone is pursuing their own ideas and

when scientists do interact it is mostly

to argue that their own concepts

theories and methods are superior to

those of other people and that other

people's results are therefore worthless

so pre paradigmatic science doesn't

really look like science as we know it

as unified or at least somewhat unified

disciplines with clear standards and a

shared body of assumptions

according to Kuhn this face of science

isn't very productive because scientists

can't work together they can't build on

each other's results which means that

everyone is constantly starting from

scratch so it is very good for a

scientific discipline Kuhn things.when

for one reason or another maybe because

of some great results or because of

dirty politics or whatever one set of

theories and methods becomes dominant

once that happens once scientists in a

pre paradigmatic discipline fall in line

behind a single set of ideas that's when

we have a paradigm and then we move from

pre paradigmatic science to normal

science scientists start working within

a paradigm that they are no longer

critical about and that means they can

finally work together to solve detailed

problems but paradigms don't lost

forever which means that a discipline

doesn't always remain in a state of

normal science here Kuhn introduces the

concept of an anomaly a problem within

the paradigm that scientists are at

present unable to solve an observation

that doesn't fit with the basic theories

of the paradigm for instance would be an

anomaly now popper would think of an

anomaly as a falsification it shows that

the theories are wrong and for popper

that means we have to reject

the theories and dust reject the

paranoid but Koons thinks about

anomalies in a very different way he

claims that every scientific discipline

always has anomalies there are always

things that scientists as present don't

know how to explain but that doesn't

worry them they assume that they'll

solve them in the future the existence

of anomalies is not a problem for a

scientific paradigm says Kuhn as long as

scientists remain confident that they

will be resolved in due time but it is

possible for scientists to lose that

confidence if the number of anomalies

keeps growing and if scientists have

almost no success when they're trying to

solve the existing anomalies then Kuhn

says scientists will start to doubt

whether they can ever solve these

anomalies within the current paradigm

when that happens we have reached the

face of crisis so a crisis is a face

when scientists start doubting their own

paradigm in normal science scientists

have confidence that a paradigm will

allow them to solve all the puzzles they

want to solve in a time of crisis

scientists are losing that confidence

this means that in times of crisis

scientists become critical of the

paradigm they start wondering whether it

shouldn't be changed they become

interested in radical new ideas new

theories new methods new concepts they

start to think out of the box so to say

outside the paradigm that they have been

using for all these years and the longer

a crisis lasts the more critical

scientists become and the more radical

either new ideas that they take

seriously now there are two ways to end

a crisis one possibility is that some of

the most important anomalies are solved

within the current paradigm then the

confidence of scientists in their

paradigm will be restored and we go back

to normal science the crisis is over

this

second possibility is the more dramatic

it is that a new paradigm emerges a new

set of theories concept and methods that

promises to solve some of the most

important anomalies if the majority of

the scientific community embraces this

new paradigm and abandons the old

paradigm then we have reached the fourth

phase of science a scientific revolution

a scientific revolution then is that

face of science where one paradigm is

abandoned and another is accepted Kuhn

also calls this a paradigm shift

such revolutions are the most dramatic

episodes in the history of science one

way of thinking is abandoned an entirely

different way of thinking is accepted

some examples which I won't go into in

any detail might be the famous

Scientific Revolution with capital

letters of the 17th century but also the

Renaissance revolution in philology the

Darwinian revolution in biology or the

chomskyan or saussurean revolutions in

linguistics these are moments which

define scientific disciplines for

decades or even for centuries when we

look back at the history of science Kuhn

points out these scientific revolutions

are the most noticeable moments because

of that people often think the science

consists of revolutions and that it is a

very critical activity but in fact Kuhn

says revolutions are the exception not

the rule

the rule is normal science the vast

majority of scientists do the vast

majority of their work within a stable

paradigm they are solving puzzles

without being too critical about the

paradigm that they are working in when

normal science gets stuck that's when a

revolution can shake things up again but

most of the real work most of the

detailed solving of problems is done by

normal scientists during normal science

Koons picture of science then is quite

different from the view of science that

many people have

it has been immensely influential the

idea of a paradigm is very useful for

understanding science as is the

interplay between normal science and

revolutions that Kuhn identifies things

become a bit more controversial when

Kuhn starts talking about scientific

progress and what he calls

incommensurability but that is the topic

for the next lecture