Study+guide+3

Q4. What terms would Kuhn use to describe the progress of science? Give an example.

The late Thomas Kuhn was an influential figure on the history and philosophy of science. Possibly the contribution he is most famous for is the concept of "paradigm shift", as a method of "scientific revolution" in response to a "crisis" in "normal science". It is the use of these terms by which Kuhn characterises scientific progress. "Normal science" refers to the state of knowledge within the existing paradigm, the latter term referring to the current and generally accepted framework of scientific thinking; an example of a current paradigm is the Theory of Evolution. According to Kuhn, normal science is advanced incrementally, as one scientist modifies the ideas of another in the light of his/her recent findings; when this is done by all scientists in a particular field working off one another, gaps in the knowledge of normal science are filled in, and the Theory of Evolution is strenghtened by discoveries in the fossil record, or reinterpretation of previous accepted knowledge in the light of the current paradigm.

Normal science is challenged when the hypotheses posed and models formed don't actually fit //all// of the observed data. This is problematic, as the purpose of a paradigm is essentially to explain everything within its compass by reference to its established theories. In some cases such problems can be referred to as experimental error, or as currently unexplained (until the gaps in normal science are filled in), but over time, these accumulate and actually challenge the paradigm itself. This produces the "crisis" moment, when many of the practitioners within the paradigm start to consider the possibility that the paradigm itself may not be entirely watertight. Once such a realisation occurs, then the scientists who have operated within that paradigm start to consider that the paradigm itself needs adjusting, thus producing a "scientific revolution". This scientific revolution can be thus termed as the core beliefs of those who have worked within the paradigm have been shaken; however, on the plus side they get to take part in the "paradigm shift", where hot on the heels of the revolution forcing an adjustment of the former paradigm, these same scientists get to join in the formation of a new paradigm, and develop theories that explain not only the previously unexplainable under the former paradigm, but that also consistently explain the former findings. In this sense, the paradigm has shifted to encompass what was previously without its compass, whilst retaining that which was within. It is important to note that the definition of paradigm shift as used by Kuhn differs to that in the vernacular, where it is commonly posited as entailing a complete change in worldview; Kuhn prefers to use paradigm shift to refer to significant changes in scientific knowledge (rather than a linear advancement), but there is rarely a complete rejection of the old, as much of the previous paradigm can still prove useful in explaining observations- a useful way to think of this is to imagine paradigms as overlapping with each other, with the overlapped parts representing that which is consistent across both the former and current frameworks.

One example of a paradigm shift in the natural sciences is that of creationism- Lamarckian evolution- Darwinian evolution. As the natural scientists of the Enlightenment and post-Enlightenment discovered evidence implying a "hierarchy of complexity", and that organisms were adapted over time to suit their environments, this challenged the fundamentalist interpretations of the Book of Genesis. Jean-Baptiste Lamarck posited a theory of evolution whereby organisms adapted through the use and disuse of characteristics (famously, that the giraffe elongated its own neck over time to reach the fruit in trees); a significant paradigm shift. Charles Darwin challenged this, and wrote that it was the environment which selected upon traits of the organism, causing those which were best suited to thrive, whereas the others didn't; this view was again a paradigm shift from Lamarck's. Over time, Darwinian evolution has undergone its own shifts, as discoveries in Mendelian inheritance, and molecular genetics have refined it, and no doubt this will continue to be the case.

David Morrissey. ML: very interesting answer. I hadn't thought about whether the scientific use of 'paradigm' differed from everyday use. Lamarckianism is also very interesting, because it turns out that environmental influences do some time change the way genes are expressed (meaning there is more or less of whatever the gene is responsible for) in a way that is heritable but that does not change the DNA code. I think these induced changes only persist for a generation or two (unless reinforced presumably). Some geneticist among OCLers should be able to elaborate. Sometimes people dress up this finding as requiring a pardigm shift, but it looks like creep to me.