Chapter 2.4: Michel Foucault, epistemes

Summary

This 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

00:00

📚 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.

05:01

🤔 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.

10:02

🕰️ 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.

Keywords

💡Michel Foucault

Michel Foucault was a French philosopher, historian of ideas, and social theorist known for his work on power, knowledge, and discourse. In the video, he is highlighted for his influential approach to the history of science and his concept of 'epistemic', which is central to understanding the theme of the video.

💡Epistemic

The term 'epistemic' in the context of Foucault's work refers to the underlying rules and assumptions that govern what is considered valid knowledge or serious discourse within a scientific community during a certain period. It is a key concept in the video, illustrating the shift in what is taken seriously in science over time.

💡Paradigm Shift

A 'paradigm shift' is a fundamental change in approach or underlying assumptions within a scientific discipline. The video mentions this concept in comparison to Foucault's 'epistemic', noting that while both involve significant changes, they differ in their scope and the nature of the changes they describe.

💡AP Stammer

An 'AP stammer' is a term used by Foucault to describe a set of unconscious rules that determine the discourse within a scientific community. The video explains that these rules are deeply ingrained and often go unnoticed by scientists themselves, yet they significantly influence what is considered valid scientific discussion.

💡History of Science

The 'history of science' is the study of the development of science over time. The video emphasizes that Foucault, like Kuhn, believes this history is not a linear progression but involves sudden changes or ruptures, which are central to understanding Foucault's perspective on epistemic shifts.

💡Subject

In the video, 'subject' refers to the individual human being with their beliefs, desires, and decisions. Foucault critiques the traditional focus on the subject in history, arguing that large-scale processes and tendencies are often more influential in shaping the course of science.

💡Consciousness

'Consciousness' in this context is the awareness of one's own thoughts and feelings. Foucault argues that by focusing on conscious phenomena, historians of science may overlook the unconscious rules that more fundamentally shape scientific discourse and practice.

💡Unconscious Rules

The term 'unconscious rules' refers to the underlying, often unnoticed guidelines that influence behavior, thought, and discourse. In the video, these rules are contrasted with conscious beliefs and desires, with Foucault suggesting that they play a more critical role in shaping scientific thought.

💡Bestiaries

Bestiaries are a type of medieval literature that describes animals, often with a moral or religious lesson. The video uses bestiaries as an example of how the epistemic of the Middle Ages allowed for a type of discourse that would not be considered scientific by modern standards.

💡Evolutionary Biology

Evolutionary biology is the study of how species change over time through the process of evolution. The video contrasts the modern scientific discipline of evolutionary biology with medieval bestiaries to illustrate the profound changes in scientific epistemic over time.

💡Scientific Community

The 'scientific community' refers to the collective body of scientists and researchers engaged in scientific endeavors. The video discusses how the epistemic rules of a given time and place determine what ideas and theories are taken seriously by this 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