82,853
edits
The Structure of Scientific Revolutions: Difference between revisions
The Structure of Scientific Revolutions (view source)
Revision as of 19:47, 18 October 2022
, 18 October 2022no edit summary
Amwelladmin (talk | contribs) No edit summary |
Amwelladmin (talk | contribs) No edit summary |
||
| (7 intermediate revisions by the same user not shown) | |||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
{{a|book review|}} | {{a|book review|{{image|Structure|jpg|}}}}'''''The Structure of Scientific Revolutions''''' by {{author|Thomas Kuhn}}{{bi}} | ||
===Small and perfectly formed: one of the great works of modern philosophy=== | ===Small and perfectly formed: one of the great works of modern philosophy=== | ||
{{author|Thomas Kuhn}}’s {{br|The Structure of Scientific Revolutions}} is a true classic of modern literature. This wonderful little book, which argues for the contingency of scientific knowledge, deserves space on the bookshelf next to [[Adam Smith]]’s ''The Wealth of Nations'' (identifying the contingency of economic value), [[David Hume]]’s ''A Treatise of Human Nature'' (the contingency of cause), Charles Darwin’s {{br|The Origin of Species}} (the contingency of biology) and Richard Rorty’s ''Contingency, Irony and Solidarity'' (the contingency of language) — along with those perennially confusing continental stalwarts {{author|Friedrich Nietzsche}} and {{author|Ludwig Wittgenstein}} — as representing the fundamental underpinnings of modern pragmatic thought. | {{author|Thomas Kuhn}}’s {{br|The Structure of Scientific Revolutions}} is a true classic of modern literature. This wonderful little book, which argues for the contingency of scientific knowledge, deserves space on the bookshelf next to [[Adam Smith]]’s ''The Wealth of Nations'' (identifying the contingency of economic value), [[David Hume]]’s ''A Treatise of Human Nature'' (the contingency of cause), Charles Darwin’s {{br|The Origin of Species}} (the contingency of biology) and Richard Rorty’s ''Contingency, Irony and Solidarity'' (the contingency of language) — along with those perennially confusing continental stalwarts {{author|Friedrich Nietzsche}} and {{author|Ludwig Wittgenstein}} — as representing the fundamental underpinnings of modern pragmatic thought. | ||
| Line 9: | Line 9: | ||
{{verification and falsification}} | {{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 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. | 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. | |||
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. | 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 36: | Line 38: | ||
{{author|Richard Dawkins}} may not like that sort of accountability but, not being a scientist, I do. | {{author|Richard Dawkins}} may not like that sort of accountability but, not being a scientist, I do. | ||
{{sa}} | |||
*[[Paradigm]] for a longer discussion about the relevance of all this in our post-truth world. | |||
*[[Epistemology]] | |||
*{{br|No One Would Listen: A True Financial Thriller}} | |||
*{{br|Cynical Theories: How Activist Scholarship Made Everything about Race Gender and Identity}} | |||
{{Book Club Wednesday|24/11/20}} | |||