Week 3 chapter 4 “Kuhn and Lakatos, alternative views to Popper”
Thomas Kuhn (strategy to go beyond logical positivist thought in popper’s work)
Kuhn criticized the distinction between discovery and justification and emphasized
incommensurability (uncomparability) between theories. In his book the structure of scientific
revolution he justified his views using paradigms. The development of science is driven by paradigms
which provide puzzles and the tools to their solution (normal science). When the confidence in a
paradigm is lost as it cannot solve certain puzzles (anomalies) a scientific revolution follows in which
another paradigm replaces the old one. Therefor as theories are guided by different paradigms, they
are incommensurable, this is his incommensurability thesis. This, with the highlight of history of
science as a role in the development of science, spurred the accusation that Kuhn thought science
was irrational.
Normal science is research that is based firmly upon previous scientific achievements. It is the basis
for a scientific community that works within a paradigm for further practice. An additional paradigm
is added when there is an unprecedented achievement which draws a group of adherents away from
the existing competing modes of scientific activity. Simultaneously being open ended enough to
supply all sorts of unsolved problems. A paradigm is an object for further articulation and
specification under new or more stringent conditions. The attractiveness of a paradigm is its promise
of success in solving the stated incomplete problems. Normal science is the actualization of the
completion of these problems. Criterion are established for selecting problems within the paradigm
that can be solved. As problems are solved, they are cumulated with the steady extension of the
scope and precision of scientific knowledge as a result. This view thus downplays the role of the
individual genius and thus puts invention and progress into historical perspective.
The development of new paradigms starts with scientific crises which in turn start with the
recognition of an anomaly. The notion that nature has again invalidated the original paradigm
induced expectations of normal science. In time the anomaly becomes a self fulfilling prophecy with
more and more scientists devoting time and recources to solve the problem as it is seen as more and
more of the core issue to solve the recognized problems. Eventually working in the current paradigm
creates so much resistance that a new one must be created. Although it is possible that the original
normal science is able to handle it. It is also possible that no new paradigm is currently able to deal
with the problem and is set aside for new generations. Note that the invalidation of paradigms in
unlike falsification á la proper as there is no direct comparison to nature but rather to existing
paradigms. Scientific revolutions are thus started by the realization that the current method does not
work with current problems. And that the current methods do offer possible solutions to current
problems requiring drastic shift.
Kuhn holds that the actions of scientist are therefore determined by the normal scientific tradition he
has been taught to operate in (paradigm) and on the other hand his natural environment. It is often
noted that scientist who instigate new paradigms are often very young or new to the field. They are
not yet bogged down to old paradigms and have the open-mindedness to create a new one.
The debate on which paradigm to use will culminate in a circular discussion as both parties discuss
issues from their paradigm viewpoint. With both arguments holding in their own paradigm and
consequently always loosing out in the other paradigm. Two different paradigms are
incommensurable as they view things totally different. The bridge cannot be crossed.
The primary purpose of scientists in the paradigm is problem solving. Testing only occurs when
different paradigms must be compared to one another in crises.
Thomas Kuhn (strategy to go beyond logical positivist thought in popper’s work)
Kuhn criticized the distinction between discovery and justification and emphasized
incommensurability (uncomparability) between theories. In his book the structure of scientific
revolution he justified his views using paradigms. The development of science is driven by paradigms
which provide puzzles and the tools to their solution (normal science). When the confidence in a
paradigm is lost as it cannot solve certain puzzles (anomalies) a scientific revolution follows in which
another paradigm replaces the old one. Therefor as theories are guided by different paradigms, they
are incommensurable, this is his incommensurability thesis. This, with the highlight of history of
science as a role in the development of science, spurred the accusation that Kuhn thought science
was irrational.
Normal science is research that is based firmly upon previous scientific achievements. It is the basis
for a scientific community that works within a paradigm for further practice. An additional paradigm
is added when there is an unprecedented achievement which draws a group of adherents away from
the existing competing modes of scientific activity. Simultaneously being open ended enough to
supply all sorts of unsolved problems. A paradigm is an object for further articulation and
specification under new or more stringent conditions. The attractiveness of a paradigm is its promise
of success in solving the stated incomplete problems. Normal science is the actualization of the
completion of these problems. Criterion are established for selecting problems within the paradigm
that can be solved. As problems are solved, they are cumulated with the steady extension of the
scope and precision of scientific knowledge as a result. This view thus downplays the role of the
individual genius and thus puts invention and progress into historical perspective.
The development of new paradigms starts with scientific crises which in turn start with the
recognition of an anomaly. The notion that nature has again invalidated the original paradigm
induced expectations of normal science. In time the anomaly becomes a self fulfilling prophecy with
more and more scientists devoting time and recources to solve the problem as it is seen as more and
more of the core issue to solve the recognized problems. Eventually working in the current paradigm
creates so much resistance that a new one must be created. Although it is possible that the original
normal science is able to handle it. It is also possible that no new paradigm is currently able to deal
with the problem and is set aside for new generations. Note that the invalidation of paradigms in
unlike falsification á la proper as there is no direct comparison to nature but rather to existing
paradigms. Scientific revolutions are thus started by the realization that the current method does not
work with current problems. And that the current methods do offer possible solutions to current
problems requiring drastic shift.
Kuhn holds that the actions of scientist are therefore determined by the normal scientific tradition he
has been taught to operate in (paradigm) and on the other hand his natural environment. It is often
noted that scientist who instigate new paradigms are often very young or new to the field. They are
not yet bogged down to old paradigms and have the open-mindedness to create a new one.
The debate on which paradigm to use will culminate in a circular discussion as both parties discuss
issues from their paradigm viewpoint. With both arguments holding in their own paradigm and
consequently always loosing out in the other paradigm. Two different paradigms are
incommensurable as they view things totally different. The bridge cannot be crossed.
The primary purpose of scientists in the paradigm is problem solving. Testing only occurs when
different paradigms must be compared to one another in crises.
