The structure of the scientific revolution

Elena Steffen
Mrs. McGreevy
ToK period 5

The Structure of Scientific Revolution

Define normal science:
1. Normal science describes research as an attempt to force nature into conceptual boxes & is predicated on the assumption that scientists understand the world.
2. Normal science often suppresses fundamental novelties because they are destructive to it's basic commitments.

But because of the "arbitrary element" fundamental novelties cannot be suppressed for very long.

How does normal science pave the way for "extraordinary science"?
When normal science fails to avoid anomalies that refute the existing scientific research & practice, a new investigation must take place called extraordinary research. This leads the profession to a new set of commitments; a new view of the field, it's methods & goals.

What are the defining characteristics of scientific revolutions?
1. Characteristics of scientific revolution include those which have previously been labeled as "revolutions".
2. Those which make the community reject the previously honored theory in favor of the new one.
3. Those which transform the world within that specific field of science.

How is it that a new theory is seldom or never just an increment of what is already known?
A new theory is seldom or never just an increment of what is already known because the new theory changes the rules of the prior practice of normal science & reflects upon the scientific research already successfully completed by scientists.

Respond; "Scientific fact & theory are not categorically separable".
The regular invention of new theories evokes the same response from some of the specialists on whose area of special competence they impinge. For these men, the new theory implies a change in the rules governing the prior practice of normal sciences. Inevitably, therefore, it reflects upon much scientific work they have already successfully completed. That is why a new theory, however special its range of application, is seldom or never just an increment to what is already known.

Kuhn describes how paradigms are created & what they contribute to scientific activity.

Normal science can be defined as: research as an attempt to force nature into conceptual boxes & is predicated on the assumption that scientists understand the world.

The "achievements" as used in the definition above must be:
a. unprecedented to attract a lasting group of adherents away from competing modes of scientific activity.
b. open-ended to leave various problems for the redefined group of practitioners to resolve.

These "achievements" are called paradigms.

The transition from one paradigm to another takes place via revolution.

Students largely learn & are mentioned by researchers "who learned the bases of their field from the same concrete models".

The implication is that THERE IS SELDOM DISAGREEMENT OVER FUNDAMENTALS. From a ToK perspective, why is this significant?
All fundamentals are interpretable, there are different perspectives to them, so many views can be right and aren't subject to disagreement.

What is scientific research before a paradigm like?
Scientific research before a paradigm is not generally narrowed into one view. For example, with electricity there were a number of opposing views & theories for the nature of it. One group thought of light as particles emerging from material bodies, another group saw it as a modification of the medium that interfered between the body & the eye. Multiple views in scientific research will exist prior to the paradigm.

Why is a paradigm essential for scientific (disciplined) inquiry?
Kuhn states that, "no natural history can be interpreted in the absence of at least some implicit body of intertwined theoretical and methodological belief that permits selection, evaluation, and criticism. If that body of belief is not already implicit in the collection of facts –in which case more than mere facts are at hand –it must be externally supplied, perhaps by a current metaphysics, by another science, or by personal and historical accident."

How are paradigms created and this scientific revolution takes place?
When there is no paradigm, any facts gathered about the profession, without pre established theory and little guidance, could all be equally relevant.To be completely accepted as a paradigm, the theory must be better than its competitors, although it usually won't explain all the facts concerned.

Why is the promulgation of scholarly articles intended for and "addressed only to professional colleagues whose knowledge of a shared paradigm can be assumed & who prove to be the only ones who can read the papers..." troublesome for acquiring "truth"?
The professional colleagues all share the same or similar beliefs or beliefs structures around a similar theory. Thus, any perspective or feedback they could provide would be narrowed down to those beliefs and beliefs structures and there wouldn't be any new perspectives to provide expansion of knowledge. 1. Heretofore, Kuhn has discussed why science is a "puzzle-solving" activity. In this chapter, he deals with what paradox of normal science?
The paradox he deals with is that it does not aim at novelties of fact or theory and finds none. Scientists aim for absolute and consistent answers, however new phenomena emerges, changing previous rules and progress.

2. In this chapter, Kuhn makes the case that the distinction between fact and theory are "exceedingly artificial". He uses three historical examples: the discovery of oxygen, x-rays, and the Leyden jar. In the first he notes to say "Oxygen was discovered" is misleading. (Language influences perception). How does he use the example of Priestley & Lavoiser to move a more accurate understanding of the nature of discovery?
Kuhn uses the example of Priestly & Lavoisier to help more accurately understand the nature of discovery, the phrase, "oxygen was discovered" is misleading in that it narrows discovery into a single act or event, rather then the long process it is. Oxygen existed along, scientists just built off each other's research to try to put together an acceptable way to describe its existence.

3. The discovery of oxygen "was a keystone for a chemical revolution". Not so with the discovery of the X-ray. What was the x-rays implicated "shock" value?
X-Rays shock values lies in that the discovery violated their expectations, opened a new field, and added to normal science. Thus, all previous research and conclusions became invalidated and needed modification.

4. What point does Kuhn make regarding the nature of perception using the Bruner-Postman experiment?
Kuhn point on our nature of perception regarding the Bruner-Postman experiment is that our perception is biased to how we want to see things; when we expect to see something a certain way, that is how we will most likely perceive it. Only when something unexpected occurs will we understand that we've been misleading.

How do scientists respond to anomaly?
a. They may lose faith and consider alternatives, but they never renounce a paradigm.
b. They devise numerous articulations and ad hoc modifications of their theory in order to eliminate any apparent conflict.
c. Some, unable to tolerate the crisis, leave the profession.
d. they generally do not treat anomalies as counter instances of expected outcomes.

2.Why does Kuhn argue that once a paradigm has been found there can be no such thing as research without a paradigm?
Kuhn states that there is, "no such thing as research without counter instances" & once a paradigm is found this new basis never completely resolves all the problems & so new encounter instances & paradigms emerge.

3. Kuhn disputes the notion that the truths of scientific theories are determined by measuring them against the FACTS. Quote Einstein in Zen 10 where he essentially says the same thing.
"Nobody who has really gone into the matter will deny that in the practice of the world of phenomena uniquely determines the theoretical system, in spite of the fact that there is no theoretical bridge between phenomena and their theoretical principles."

4. How do scientists know which anomalies to investigate? Respond by quoting Poincare in Zen 22.
"They must be felt rather than formulated...this selection is made by the subliminal self."

5. What are the characteristics of a crisis?
a. Crisis is followed by a scientific revolution if the existing paradigm is superseded by a rival
b. Crisis is always implicit in research because every problem that normal science sees as a puzzle can be seen, from another viewpoint, as a counterinstance and thus as a source of crisis.
c. To evoke a crisis, an anomaly must usually be more than just an anomaly. d. All crises begin with the blurring of a paradigm and the consequent loosening of the rules for normal research.

7. Why are almost all fundamental paradigm shifts accomplished by young men/new men to the field?
Young men/new men to the field are usually as committed to the rules of normal science and so are more likely to see how these rules no longer work develop them, also providing new perspectives.

8. What are the symptoms that indicate a transition from normal to extraordinary science is occurring?
Different conditions come together and make an anomaly especially pressing, when an anomaly seems like more than just a puzzle of normal science, the transition to extraordinary science has begun. This transition is referred to as scientific revolution.