The Structure of Scientific Revolutions: Difference between revisions

Line 9:

All this activity takes place inside what Kuhn describes as a “[[paradigm]]”: a “particular coherent tradition of scientific research". The [[paradigm]] governs not only the theory but the education, instrumentation, rules and standards of scientific practice, and is the basis on which the scientific community decides which kinds of questions are and are not relevant to the development of scientific research. A paradigm claims exclusivity over the adjudication of its own subject matter; one only has authority to pronounce on a scientific problem once one has been fully inducted: evolutionary biologists will not take seriously the biological assertions of fundamentalist Christians, for example. Fundamentalist Christians who take biology exams will fail, and thereby will never be able to authoritatively comment on

All this activity takes place inside what Kuhn describes as a “[[paradigm]]”: a “particular coherent tradition of scientific research". The [[paradigm]] governs not only the theory but the education, instrumentation, rules and standards of scientific practice, and is the basis on which the scientific community decides which kinds of questions are and are not relevant to the development of scientific research. A paradigm claims exclusivity over the adjudication of its own subject matter; one only has authority to pronounce on a scientific problem once one has been fully inducted: evolutionary biologists will not take seriously the biological assertions of fundamentalist Christians, for example. Fundamentalist Christians who take biology exams will fail, and thereby will never be able to authoritatively comment on biological matters. Paradigms confer power structures therefore, and can only be judged from within. However much {{author|Richard Dawkins}} might bridle against the idea, it seems incontestably right to me.

biological matters. Paradigms confer power structures therefore, and can only be judged from within. However much {{author|Richard Dawkins}} might bridle against the idea, it seems incontestably right to me.

Paradigms are useful for the jobbing scientist: they provide a pre-agreed framework — what philosopher {{author|Daniel Dennett}} would call a “crane” — on which additional scientific research can be undertaken without having, literally, to re-invent the wheel. Kuhn characterises this sort of “normal scientist” as being involved in “puzzle solving” in exactly the sense that one solves a crossword puzzle: you have a framework of rules for how to solve the puzzle; you have problems (the blank spaces on the puzzle) and you have empirically obtained evidence (clues) which you manipulate using the rules to produce predictions (or answers), and each newly discovered answer then acts as an additional clue to solve the remaining problems.

@@ Line 9: / Line 9: @@
 {{verification and falsification}}
-All this activity takes place inside what Kuhn describes as a “[[paradigm]]”: a “particular coherent tradition of scientific research". The [[paradigm]] governs not only the theory but the education, instrumentation, rules and standards of scientific practice, and is the basis on which the scientific community decides which kinds of questions are and are not relevant to the development of scientific research. A paradigm claims exclusivity over the adjudication of its own subject matter; one only has authority to pronounce on a scientific problem once one has been fully inducted: evolutionary biologists will not take seriously the biological assertions of fundamentalist Christians, for example. Fundamentalist Christians who take biology exams will fail, and thereby will never be able to authoritatively comment on
+All this activity takes place inside what Kuhn describes as a “[[paradigm]]”: a “particular coherent tradition of scientific research". The [[paradigm]] governs not only the theory but the education, instrumentation, rules and standards of scientific practice, and is the basis on which the scientific community decides which kinds of questions are and are not relevant to the development of scientific research. A paradigm claims exclusivity over the adjudication of its own subject matter; one only has authority to pronounce on a scientific problem once one has been fully inducted: evolutionary biologists will not take seriously the biological assertions of fundamentalist Christians, for example. Fundamentalist Christians who take biology exams will fail, and thereby will never be able to authoritatively comment on biological matters. Paradigms confer power structures therefore, and can only be judged from within. However much {{author|Richard Dawkins}} might bridle against the idea, it seems incontestably right to me.
-biological matters. Paradigms confer power structures therefore, and can only be judged from within. However much {{author|Richard Dawkins}} might bridle against the idea, it seems incontestably right to me.
 Paradigms are useful for the jobbing scientist: they provide a pre-agreed framework — what  philosopher {{author|Daniel Dennett}} would call a “crane” — on which additional scientific research can be undertaken without having, literally, to re-invent the wheel. Kuhn characterises this sort of “normal scientist” as being involved in “puzzle solving” in exactly the sense that one solves a crossword puzzle: you have a framework of rules for how to solve the puzzle; you have problems (the blank spaces on the puzzle) and you have empirically obtained evidence (clues) which you manipulate using the rules to produce predictions (or answers), and each newly discovered answer then acts as an additional clue to solve the remaining problems.