Chapter 2.2: Thomas Kuhn, scientific revolutions
Summary
TLDRThis 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
🔬 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.
🤔 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.
Mindmap
Keywords
💡Thomas Kuhn
💡Paradigm
💡Normal Science
💡Pre-paradigmatic Phase
💡Anomaly
💡Crisis
💡Scientific Revolution
💡Paradigm Shift
💡Incommensurability
💡Popper
💡Scientific Progress
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
Browse More Related Video
![](https://i.ytimg.com/vi/sOGZEZ96ynI/hq720.jpg)
Chapter 2.1: Thomas Kuhn, normal science
![](https://i.ytimg.com/vi/25rGGigObwk/hq720.jpg)
Thomas S. Kuhn's The Structure of Scientific Revolutions
![](https://i.ytimg.com/vi/fa7pgE_qWJU/hq720.jpg)
Chapter 2.4: Michel Foucault, epistemes
![](https://i.ytimg.com/vi/vzo8vnxSARg/hq720.jpg)
The Scientific Revolution: Crash Course History of Science #12
![](https://i.ytimg.com/vi/d-4GR-5TUf8/hq720.jpg?sqp=-oaymwEmCIAKENAF8quKqQMa8AEB-AH-CYAC0AWKAgwIABABGHIgSSg_MA8=&rs=AOn4CLCuuH8xZAht9L-w2DA5AYoGadIXcg)
The In depth Story Behind a Climate Fraud
![](https://i.ytimg.com/vi/bl9PewC-dco/hq720.jpg)
Il rapporto tra scienza e inclusione con Adrian Fartade - Audi We Generation S5E3
5.0 / 5 (0 votes)