A BRIEF SUMMARY OF
T.S. KUHN:
THE STRUCTURE OF SCIENTIFIC REVOLUTION
Teodora Stanciu
November 6th, 2018
THE STRUCTURE OF SCIENTIFIC REVOLUTION
Background
This paper is structured to inform readers of an in-depth perception of scientific revolution provided by, Thomas S. Kuhn. Suhn was an American physicist, historian and philosopher of science. He wrote a book in 1962, The Structure of Scientific Revolution which comprehensively covers an area of scientific revolution that had not yet been discovered. However, for the sake of time and purpose this paper will draw main attention to Chapter IX-The Nature and Necessity of Scientific Revolutions.
Introduction
The first paragraph starts of to consider the problems that gave the title of this chapter, asking “What are scientific revolutions, and what is their function in scientific development?”. Previous discussions pointed out that scientific revolutions are developmental episodes where older paradigms are either completely, or only partly, replenished by contradictory new paradigms. Kuhn however, was not satisfied with these explanations and furthered asked,
“Why should a change of paradigm be called a revolution? In the face of vast and essential differences between political and scientific development, what parallelism can justify the metaphor that finds revolutions in both?”. After asking these questions, Kahn then brings up one visible feature, of parallelism between them.
Kahn defines the scientific revolution as, “a noncumulative developmental episode in which an older paradigm is replaced in whole or in part by an incompatible new one “(92). What this simply means is that an original paradigm can be replaced partially or completely by a more new paradigm that is further developed and established. This type of process can ensure that the protocols and phenomenons are up to date to further scientific methodologies.
Political and Scientific Revolution Comparison
The author compares political and scientific revolutions as easily comparable, especially in this sense to make comprehension a bit easier due to the topic at hand. Political revolutions hold boundaries to a specific population, current establishments fail to proficiently eliminate environmental problems created by politicians. Similar to political revolution, scientific revolutions emerge through uprising sensitivity is also hold boundaries and restrictions. These boundaries are implemented into isolating parts of the scientific realm, thus creating a paradigm that has failed to accurately lead the way of nature and its components. This type of structuring in both political and scientific revolution is what previously led the way to abnormalities and eventually crisis.
Let's take an in-depth look at a common scientific revolution of x-rays. X-rays are used universally for all realms of life including medically and astronomically. Astronomers, may use X-rays as a contribution to their paradigms, due simply because foundings of new radiation did not pertain to them. However, in instances such as Kelvin where radiation was their main concentration, X-rays could potentially contradict their paradigm. Kahn uses this example in his book to explain how certain segments of the scientific realm only use certain characteristics that distinctly support their findings, thus deriving debates of paradigms (93).
Debates on New Paradigms
Debates between intellectual beings on a particular topic allows each side to use their own paradigms in defense to another, however the result is ambient and fails to give vital information for the world (98). This type of debate is neither right or wrong, however its founded primarily upon persuasion, furthermore persuasion is not valid enough. The relationship between political and scientific revolutions supports their parallelism. However, scientific revolutions are highly determined by their effect on not only nature but the rationale and approach of the persuasive arguments. Kahn mentioned that debates such as these, along with doubt are what provide essential and crucial information about the nature of science (95). Therefore, we can conclude from what Kahn has written over and over that a successful paradigm or theory a provide new indicators from previous derivatives (98). However, these paradigm or phenomenon can only occur if the previous is different, and the second overrides or displaces the first.
Forms of Phenomenons
Chapter IX, provides the reader with three types of phenomena related to how a new theory could be developed. The first phenomena presented explains existing paradigms, and how occasionally it provides a form of motive to derive a new theory. However, due to the fact nature lacks supportive evidence, these types of phenomenon are not normally accepted.
The second class of phenomena contains phenomenons of those whose nature is indicated by existing paradigms but hold gaps that can only be understood through a more thorough diction. With these types of phenomena scientists have a tendency to stick to what is known or more established paradigms over comprehending new ones (97).
Once the first and second forms of phenomenon fail, is when a scientists encounters the third phenomena. Which is when the characteristics of this phenomena fails to meet criteria under an existing paradigms, which provides new theories. Kahn provides historical examples of Einsteinian dynamics and the older dynamical equations that descend from Newton’s Principia (99). Again, the theories of the two are fundamentally incompatible, but can be used to prove theories long and better scientific theories and findings. In order to alter the meaning of an existing and familiar concept, their must be a urge for revolutionary impacts. The difference between successive paradigms and irreconcilable paradigms are that successive paradigms tell scientists various things about a population, and their behavior. Receiving a new paradigm in most cases asks for a new definition or redefining pre-existing science (103). Using another real-world example of the essence and necessity for science revolution Kahn, provided information on a physical and chemical phenomena on why bodies burned-they were rich in phlogiston- along with why metals had so many properties in common than other metals (99). Therefore, if these phenomena were the only ones derived, other theories could have never have challenged them. The issue at hand however is that science restrictions and standards make it harder for cases to gather and develop paradigms/theories. Kahn does a great job of explaining how standards change, through adaptations of the world around it along with new supportive theories. These paradigms assist to navigate through problems in order to be solved, however because nature is so complex a paradigm is essential to science (109).
Conclusion
The combination of either a new phenomenon or theory, must reject an older paradigm. Without a rejection there would be no scientific growth, thus no scientific revolution. These paradigms grow, and cause damage to beliefs in nature. In a circular argument, a paradigm will be able to gratify the expected guidelines. Consequently, because no two paradigms leave the same problems unsolved. Kahn questions, “What problem is more significant to have solved?” Therefore, Kahn has established that a paradigm is in fact a revolution, because it forces an overruling of one phenomena in order to derive a better foundation, in this case a scientific foundation.