The structure of scientific revolutionsThe Route to Normal Science

The Structure of scientific revolutionsKuhn challenged inductivist anf falsificationist accounts of science because he found that these traditional accounts of science do not bear comparison with historical evidence.He developed account of science as an attempt to give a theory more in keeping with the historical situation. The history of the process is seen as the dominant paradigm (the pre-history of the mature science), and the mature of science as the emergence of a specialist group or dominant group.

The structure of scientific revolutionsThe emphasis of this theory is placed on the revolutionary character of scientific progress, where a revolution involves the abandonment of one theoretical structure and its replacement by another, incompatible one. Kuhns picture of the way a science progresses can be shown as open-ended: pre-science normal science crisis revolution new normal science new crisis

The structure of scientific revolutionsThe dis-organised and diverse activity that precedes the formation of science eventually becomes structured and directed when a single paradigm becomes adhered to by a scientific community (dogma as the terms of acceptance).

The history of Galileo & NewtonKuhn found that Aristotles theory of motion within the context of Newtonian mechanics, at first sight seemed to be both simple-minded and false. But, if grasped the point, then Aristotle motion meant different from what it meant for Newton. Here the Aristotelian system made coherent sense.

The history of Galileo & NewtonThus, Aristotles science could not be compared directly with Newtonian science, the two systems were quite incomparable and incommensurable theoretical world.The change from the Aristotelian view to the Newtonian view could not be seen in evolutionary terms (Newtonian mechanics corrected the mistakes of

The history of Galileo & NewtonAristotles physics an provided a more complete and sophisticated account), but Newtons science was a revolutionary new way of investigating the new world.

The Route to Normal ScienceAccording to Kuhn, a scientific community cannot practice its ideas/findings/results without some set of accepted beliefs.Thus, normal science means research based on one or more past scientific achievements, achievements that some particular scientific community acknowledges for a time as supplying the foundation for its further practice.

The Route to Normal ScienceScientific achievements must sufficientlyunprecedentedto attract an enduring group of adherents away from competing modes of scientific activity. sufficientlyopen-endedto leave all sorts of problems for the redefined group of practitioners (and their students) to resolve, i. e., research.

The Route to Normal Science (2)These achievements called as paradigms

Kuhns Normal ScienceA paradigm is made up of the general theoretical assumptions and laws and the techniques for their application that the members of a particular scientific adopt.Workers within a paradigm (such as Newtonian mechanics, wave optics or a bulk of scientific work done, accepted by its practitioners of a system of concepts, methods and assumptions a type of instrumentation, a metaphysical speculation, a textbook) called as normal science.

Kuhns Normal ScienceNormal scientists will articulate and develop the paradigm in an attempt to account for the behaviour of the real world through the results of experimentation.During this attempt, normal scientists will experience difficulties and encounter falsifications. If these difficulties get out of hand, a crisis state develops.

Kuhns Normal ScienceA crisis is resolved when an entirely new paradigm emerges and attract the allegiance of more scientists until eventually the original paradigm is abandoned.The discontinuous change constitutes a scientific revolution. The new paradigm now guides new normal scientific activity until it too runs into serious trouble and new crisis followed by a new resolution results.

Kuhns Normal ScienceThis Kuhns organizational aspects include: normal science, revolutionary science and paradigm.

Kuhns Normal ScienceIn addition, an account of science is influenced by the social behavior of scientists (scientific communities) because he found the disagreement between social scientists (psychologists or sociologists) about the nature of legitimate scientific problems and methods, as the practitioners of natural sciences fail to evoke the controversies over fundamentals.

Kuhns Normal ScienceThis behaviour is more open to charges of irrationalism and subjectivism because these factors affect the substantive aspect of science.Thus, the role in scientific research which called paradigms, in attempts to discover the source of that difference between the practitioners of the natural sciences and social scientists

Kuhns Normal ScienceThe successive transition from one paradigm to another via revolution is the usual developmental pattern of mature science"

ParadigmsRefer to each great scientific epoch which dictate in effect what is to be considered science at any particular time and what is not.

ParadigmsThus, the areas of scientific research that are thought to be interesting and important, the issues that are considered to be problems and those that are not, the style of scientific research, even what is considered to be scientific fact these are all dictated by the paradigms or models of science that are adopted at any one time.

ParadigmsHelp scientific communities toboundtheir discipline in that they help the scientist to create avenues of inquiry. formulate research questions select methods with which to examine questions define areas of relevance establish/create meaning

Paradigms created through Inquiry begins with a random collection of "mere facts" (although, often, a body of beliefs is already implicit in the collection) the early stages of inquiry, different researchers confronting the same phenomena describe and interpret them in different ways In time, these descriptions and interpretations entirely disappear

Paradigms created through Apre- paradigmaticschool (movement) appears this school often emphasizes a special part of the collection of facts Often, the schools vie for pre-eminence

Paradigms created through From the competition of pre-paradigmatic schools, one paradigm emerges"To be accepted as a paradigm, a theory must seem better than its competitors, but it need not, and in fact never does, explain all the facts with which it can be confronted" , this makes research possible

Paradigms created through As a paradigm grows in strength and in the number of advocates, the pre-paradigmatic schools (or the previous paradigm) fade. When an individual or group first produces a synthesis able to attract most ofthe next generation'spractitioners, the older schools gradually disappear.

Paradigms created through Those with "older views . . . are simplyread outof the profession and their work is subsequently ignored. If they do not accommodate their work to the new paradigm, they are doomed to isolation or must attach themselves to some other group", or move to a department of philosophy (or history).

Paradigms created through A paradigm transforms a group into a profession or, at least, a discipline. formation of specialized journals foundation of professional societies (or specialized groups within societiesSIGs. claim to a special place in academe (and academe's curriculum)

Paradigms created through fact that members of the group need no longer build their field a newfirst principles, justification of concepts, questions, and methods. Such endeavors are left to the theorist or to writer of textbooks. promulgation of scholarly articles intended for and "addressed only to professional colleagues, [those] whose knowledge of a shared paradigm can be assumed and who prove to be the only ones able to read the papers addressed to them" preaching to the converted

Paradigms created through discussion groups on the Internet, facebook or anything.

A paradigm guides the whole group's research, and it is this criterion that most clearly proclaims a field a science.

The Nature of Normal ScienceAccording to Kuhn, paradigms gain their status because they are more successful than their competitors in solving a few problems that the group of practitioners has come to recognize as acute.However, when they first appear, paradigms are limited in scope and in precision.

The Nature of Normal ScienceBut more successful does not mean completely successful with a single problem or notably successful with any large number Initially, a paradigm offers the promise of success.

The Nature of Normal ScienceNormal science is achieved by extending the knowledge of those facts that the paradigm displays as particularly revealing increasing the extent of the match between those facts and the paradigm's predictions further articulation of the paradigm itself

Normal ScienceThis is done through mopping-up operations where most scientists engaging up throughout their careers.Mopping-up is what normal science is all aboutThus, this paradigm-based research is "an attempt to force nature into the preformed and relatively inflexible box that the paradigm supplies

mopping-up Consists of no effort made to call forth new sorts of phenomenano effort to discover anomalies when anomalies pop up, they are usually discarded or ignored anomalies usually not even noticed (tunnel vision/one track mind)

mopping-up no effort to invent new theory (and no tolerance for those who try) Normal-scientific research is directed to the articulation of those phenomena and theories that the paradigm already supplies

The problems of normal scienceDetermination of significant fact paradigm guides and informs the fact-gathering (experiments and observations described in journals) decisions of researchers researchers focus on, and attempt to increase the accuracy and scope of, facts (constructs/concepts) that the paradigm has shown to be particularly revealing of the nature of thin

The problems of normal scienceMatching of facts with theory Researchers focus on facts that can be compared directly with predictions from the paradigmatic theory. Great effort and ingenuity are required to bring theory and nature into closer and closer agreement A paradigm sets the problems to be solved

The problems of normal scienceArticulation of theory Researchers undertake empirical work to articulate the paradigm theory itself here resolve residual ambiguities, refine, permit solution of problems to which the theory had previously only drawn attention.

Articulation of theory

This is done by determination of universal constantsdevelopment of quantitative lawsselection of ways to apply the paradigm to a related area of interestPartly, a problem of application. Paradigms must undergo reformulation so that their tenets closely correspond to the natural object of their inquiry (clarification by reformulation)

Articulation of theory "The problems of paradigm articulation are simultaneously theoretical and experimental this work should produce new information and a more precise paradigm This is the primary work of many sciences

The Nature of Normal ScienceTo desert the paradigm is to cease practicing the science it defines

Normal Science as Puzzle-solvingDoing research is essentially like solving a puzzle. Puzzles have rules. Puzzles generally have predetermined solutions

features of doing researchthe range of anticipated results is small compared to the possible results.When the outcome of a research project does not fall into this anticipated result range, it is generally considered a failure, i.e., when "significance" is not obtained. Studies that fail to find the expected are usually not publishedThe proliferation of studies that find the expected helps ensure that the paradigm/theory will flourish

features of doing researchEven a project that aims at paradigm articulation does not aim at unexpected novelty.

features of doing researchOne of the things a scientific community acquires with a paradigm is a criterion for choosing problems that, while the paradigm is taken for granted, can be assumed to have solutions The intrinsic value of a research question is not a criterion for selecting it

features of doing research The assurance that the question has an answer is the criterion "The man who is striving to solve a problem defined by existing knowledge and technique is not just looking around. He knows what he wants to achieve, and he designs his instruments and directs his thoughts accordingly"

why do research?Results add to the scope and precision with which a paradigm/theory can be applied.The way to obtain the results usually remains very much in doubtthis is the challenge of the puzzleSolving the puzzle can be fun, and expert puzzle-solvers make a very nice living

a puzzle (research question)is characterized by more than the assured solution There exists a strong network of commitments conceptual, theoretical, instrumental, and methodological. There are "rules" that limitthe nature of acceptable solutionsthere are "restrictions that bound the admissible solutions to theoretical problemsmethodology

the nature of acceptable solutionsSolutions should be consistent with paradigmatic assumptionsThere are quasi-metaphysical commitments to considerThere may also be historical ties to consider

Methodology

commitments to preferred types of instrumentationsthe ways in which accepted instruments may legitimately be employed

Normal Science as Puzzle-solvingnovelty is not sought and that accepted belief is generally not challenged, the scientific enterprise can and does bring about such unexpected results

The Priority of ParadigmsHow can "rules derive from paradigms, but paradigms can guide research even in the absence of rules.