In the work of Thomas Kuhn, a paradigm is a framework of thought within which scientific enquiry takes place in any given era. Thus scientists are constrained by institutional and peer pressure to coduct enquiry within the guidelines laid down by currently accepted theories and their prescribed models of practice. This is what Kuhn refers to as 'normal science'. It is in the nature of scientific experiment, however, to generate anomalies that cannot always be explained away by current theories, and when such instances become frequent enough, science finds itself in a state of crisis that can only be resolved by the creation of a new paradigm. The new paradigm is usually incommensurable with the old, and we then speak of a paradigm shift, or radical change in perspective. The shift from Ptolemaic to Copernican astronomy (from the earth as the center of the universe to the sun as the center) is presented by Kuhn as a classic instance of paradigm shift, where one can believe in one theory or the other, but not both.
Kuhn's theory can be applied outside the sciences, and the notion of cultural paradigm shifts is now widely accepted. One such shift might be from modernity to postmodernity, although it is also part of the postmodern outlook constantly to challenge the authoritarianism felt to be encoded within almost any paradigm. Postmodern thinkers are, as a rule, more concerned with contesting the validity of frameworks of thought in general than upholding their authority.
Full Version: Paradigm Shifts
Kuhn's book is an interesting read. I recommend it.
oh yeah....which one? And what did you find interesting?
"The Structure of Scientific Revolutions", because if I recall correctly, Kuhn presents the argument that science does not get progressively closer to truth.
Thomas Kuhn ----> philosopher and historian of science (1922- )
He was originally trained as a physicist but soon moved into the philosophy and history of science, and his work there, particularly on scientific method, has had reverberations well outside his chosen fields. He was the author of 'several' importantant books, but you are right, he is best known for 'The Structure of Scientific Revolutions' (1962), where he oulined his controversial concept of 'paradigm' (basically meaning 'framework of thought'): a concept which has come to be widely adopted in critical debate across a range of intellectual discourses and disciplines.
He was originally trained as a physicist but soon moved into the philosophy and history of science, and his work there, particularly on scientific method, has had reverberations well outside his chosen fields. He was the author of 'several' importantant books, but you are right, he is best known for 'The Structure of Scientific Revolutions' (1962), where he oulined his controversial concept of 'paradigm' (basically meaning 'framework of thought'): a concept which has come to be widely adopted in critical debate across a range of intellectual discourses and disciplines.
QUOTE(Neural @ Apr 29, 08:40 PM) 
science does not get progressively closer to truth.
....if not the fundamental sciences, then what?
the argument was that paradigm shifts gave us new views of reality but did not bring us any closer to truth. Thus, Newtonian physics is in the same boat as General Relativity in offering different perspectives and approximations to truth, but one is not closer to truth than another. It's sort of a counter-intuitive idea, and though I understand the rationale behind it I'm still hesitant about accepting the validity of the conclusion.
If not the fundamental sciences, then what? I don't think Kuhn ever provides an answer, at least not in "The Structure of Scientific Revolutions".
If not the fundamental sciences, then what? I don't think Kuhn ever provides an answer, at least not in "The Structure of Scientific Revolutions".
from wikpedia
The Structure of Scientific Revolutions (1962)
Thomas Kuhn is most famous for his book The Structure of Scientific Revolutions (SSR) (1962) in which he presented the idea that science does not evolve gradually toward truth, but instead undergoes periodic revolutions which he calls "paradigm shifts." This book was originally printed as an article in the International Encyclopedia for Unified Science which was published by the Vienna circle also known as logical positivists. The enormous impact of Kuhn's work can be measured in the revolution it brought about even in the vocabulary of the history of science: besides "paradigm shifts," Kuhn raised the word "paradigm" itself from a term used in certain forms of linguistics to its current broader meaning, coined the term "normal science" to refer to the relatively routine, day-to-day work of scientists working within a paradigm, and was largely responsible for the use of the term "scientific revolutions" in the plural, taking place at widely different periods of time and in different disciplines, as opposed to a single "Scientific Revolution" in the late Renaissance.
In France, Kuhn's conception of science has been related to Michel Foucault (with Kuhn's paradigm corresponding to Foucault's episteme) and Louis Althusser, although both are more concerned by the historical conditions of possibility of the scientific discourse - which Judith Butler calls "the limits of acceptable discourse". Thus, they do not consider science as isolated from society as they argue that Kuhn does. In contrast to Kuhn, Althusser's conception of science is that it is cumulative, even though this cumulativity is discontinuous (see his concept of "epistemological break") whereas Kuhn considers various paradigms as incommensurable.
Kuhn's work has also been extensively used in social science; for instance, in the post-positivist/positivist debate within International Relations.
The Structure of Scientific Revolutions (1962)
Thomas Kuhn is most famous for his book The Structure of Scientific Revolutions (SSR) (1962) in which he presented the idea that science does not evolve gradually toward truth, but instead undergoes periodic revolutions which he calls "paradigm shifts." This book was originally printed as an article in the International Encyclopedia for Unified Science which was published by the Vienna circle also known as logical positivists. The enormous impact of Kuhn's work can be measured in the revolution it brought about even in the vocabulary of the history of science: besides "paradigm shifts," Kuhn raised the word "paradigm" itself from a term used in certain forms of linguistics to its current broader meaning, coined the term "normal science" to refer to the relatively routine, day-to-day work of scientists working within a paradigm, and was largely responsible for the use of the term "scientific revolutions" in the plural, taking place at widely different periods of time and in different disciplines, as opposed to a single "Scientific Revolution" in the late Renaissance.
In France, Kuhn's conception of science has been related to Michel Foucault (with Kuhn's paradigm corresponding to Foucault's episteme) and Louis Althusser, although both are more concerned by the historical conditions of possibility of the scientific discourse - which Judith Butler calls "the limits of acceptable discourse". Thus, they do not consider science as isolated from society as they argue that Kuhn does. In contrast to Kuhn, Althusser's conception of science is that it is cumulative, even though this cumulativity is discontinuous (see his concept of "epistemological break") whereas Kuhn considers various paradigms as incommensurable.
Kuhn's work has also been extensively used in social science; for instance, in the post-positivist/positivist debate within International Relations.
QUOTE
Anomaly and the Emergence of Scientific Discoveries Kuhn now moves past his initial topic of paradigm to scientific discovery saying that in order for there to be a discovery, an anomaly must be detected within the field of study. He discusses several different studies and points out the anomaly that invoked the scientific discovery. Later in the chapter he begins to discuss how the anomaly can be incorporated into the discovery to satisfy the scientific community.
There are three different characteristics of all discoveries from which new sorts of phenomena emerge. These three characteristics are proven through an experiment dealing with a deck of cards. The deck consisted of anomalous cards (e.g. the red six of spades shown on the previous page) mixed in with regular cards. These cards were held up in front of students who were asked to call out the card they saw, and in most cases the anomaly was not detected.
There are three different characteristics of all discoveries from which new sorts of phenomena emerge. These three characteristics are proven through an experiment dealing with a deck of cards. The deck consisted of anomalous cards (e.g. the red six of spades shown on the previous page) mixed in with regular cards. These cards were held up in front of students who were asked to call out the card they saw, and in most cases the anomaly was not detected.
Attention and awareness is sometimes like listening "between the heartbeats?"
In this way I sort of felt that a calm mind and a calm heart, would allow one to see the discrepancies better. I do not know if that is the truth of it, but imagine our perception going deeper then it had ever gone before? There had to be some results, from listening?
Is the door open to the eruption of the sociology of knowledge?
QUOTE
The Revolution that Didn't Happen by Steven Weinberg
I first read Thomas Kuhn's famous book The Structure of Scientific Revolutions1 a quarter-century ago, soon after the publication of the second edition. I had known Kuhn only slightly when we had been together on the faculty at Berkeley in the early 1960s, but I came to like and admire him later, when he came to MIT. His book I found exciting.
Evidently others felt the same. Structure has had a wider influence than any other book on the history of science. Soon after Kuhn's death in 1996, the sociologist Clifford Geertz remarked that Kuhn's book had "opened the door to the eruption of the sociology of knowledge" into the study of the sciences. Kuhn's ideas have been invoked again and again in the recent conflict over the relation of science and culture known as the science wars.
I first read Thomas Kuhn's famous book The Structure of Scientific Revolutions1 a quarter-century ago, soon after the publication of the second edition. I had known Kuhn only slightly when we had been together on the faculty at Berkeley in the early 1960s, but I came to like and admire him later, when he came to MIT. His book I found exciting.
Evidently others felt the same. Structure has had a wider influence than any other book on the history of science. Soon after Kuhn's death in 1996, the sociologist Clifford Geertz remarked that Kuhn's book had "opened the door to the eruption of the sociology of knowledge" into the study of the sciences. Kuhn's ideas have been invoked again and again in the recent conflict over the relation of science and culture known as the science wars.
Just thought you might want to look for additional reading
Humans will always be fallible, it's the nature of organic chemistry in the hands of the weather. Hence the need for computers. Not today's, of course.
This is a "lo-fi" version of our main content. To view the full version with more information, formatting and images, please click here.