Analysis Of Kuhn 's Book On Scientific Research

He portrays scientific research as dangerous by declaring that a “single step can also take one of a cliff.” This further emphasizes the courage prerequisite to scientists and hearkens back to the fear of the unknown. The fact that all of one’s work may be dashed into pieces by a single finding in the laboratory conveys the tenacity of researchers. Barry’s description of the process by which a scientist decides which “tools” are appropriate to the task at hand, exemplifies the tedious and often inglorious labor involved in most scientific research. Barry finally predicts that if a scientist is successful a “flood” of colleagues and others will “pave roads” over the paths so painstakingly laid, taking one within minutes to the very place the scientist spent so long searching for. This suggests that in the wake of major discovery, the actual pioneer of this breakthrough may be forgotten. Countless researchers have made valuable contributions to the human understanding of the world, and faded into obscurity over the course of the history of science. Barry’s conceit conveys the fact that, like exploring uncharted wilderness, scientific research can be both treacherous and thankless, but all the more noble for

These “anomalies” are what Kuhn talks about in chapter six and they result in crises, which is discussed in chapter seven, in which scientists reevaluate the fundamental understandings inherent in the accepted paradigm to either fit these anomalies into the paradigm or creatively produce an entirely new theory that can explain the anomalies. In response to such a monumental anomaly, an austere and concrete paradigm loses its solidified perspective and becomes more flexible and malleable creating an urgent need for a response. It is either solved and the paradigm survives, deferred until it becomes too daunting, or an alternate paradigm is considered. If there is a transition or shift to a new scientific theory it is called a “scientific revolution”. In chapter nine, Kuhn addresses the incompatibility of the original and new paradigms and how the new paradigm replaces the old by often making it irreconcilable for the two theories to coexist. The new destroys the old with a new fundamental set of beliefs that are instilled onto the new paradigm. Chapter ten displays how the entire world-view of the scientist is changed. Kuhn offers the example of Wittgenstein's rabbit-duck illusion to illustrate how scientists perceptions change dramatically from the acceptance of a new theory. Chapter eleven, discusses the effects of textbooks and higher academia and how they contribute to the invisibility of scientific revolution through the rigorous study that students must bear in order to achieve academic success in the sciences. These textbooks pedagogically bolster knowledge by the accretion of empirical data and therefore the principles presented by Kuhn go largely unnoticed. Chapters twelve addresses a revolution’s resolution by showing how scientist watch the support of a paradigm wither away through Popperian

He hopes that in the future "science will go beyond religion, and reason will replace faith in God".

During the World War 2 raging against the Axis, and Allies; Baldwin Kuhn a young farm man of 16 had been at his disconcerted feelings; drafted into the German army led by Adolf Hitler. There were two problems, though; first problem was when Baldwin had been 13 years of age; when his graying father was offered a greater job that took the family from America back to Germany, where they had emigrated from before he was born; which meant he was a born American. The second problem; he didn’t agree with Adolf Hitler; even though he had always been proud to be an American, and proud at, of what he believed ; he wouldn’t dare tell his fellow German soldiers who he had admittedly been; he would consequently put his family and himself in danger. To

To understand more of these two authors, it has to compare of their own writing

In the passage “The great beyond” author John M. Barry Analyzes scientist and their research. He explained the qualities a well rounded scientist should and should not batain, but more importantly the creativity and readiness that a scientist needs to have when facing and exploring the unknown world of science.

"In the course of the past few decades, the Standard Model has passed critical tests derived from experiment, but it does not address some profound questions about the nature of the Universe," (AFP, 2015)

One possible interpretation of Kuhn’s assertion that scientists work in a different world, post scientific revolution, could be explained through literally interpreting Kuhn’s usage of the word “world” to mean a different plane of existence altogether. During his discussion of paradigms and their effects on worldview, Kuhn states that “during revolutions, scientists see new and different things when looking with familiar instruments in places they have looked before. It is rather as if the professional community had been suddenly transported to another planet where familiar objects are seen in a different light” (Kuhn 111). The example Kuhn provides on the discovery of Uranus illustrates this point; the planet now known as Uranus had been observed to be, on separate occasions,

The reason someone writes is in order to try and get a message or an idea across. For some topics its easier than others, but when you’re trying and prove the whole idea of discovery wrong it may be more difficult. Thomas Kuhn writes Historical Structure of Scientific Discovery in an attempt to try and convey his message that the timeline role of discovery is wrong. He denies the idea about how some discoveries are misleading and make it seem they were found in a single moment. When you write you must assume that anyone can read it, so you have to keep your audience in mind. Different articles of science will bring in all kinds of readers. Not only was he writing to historians and scientists, but to the general public, so he needed to structure his writing to appeal his audience.

In this essay I attempt to answer the following two questions: What is Karl Popper’s view of science? Do I feel that Thomas Kuhn makes important points against it? The two articles that I make reference to are "Science: Conjectures and Refutations" by Karl Popper and "Logic of Discovery or Psychology of Research?" by Thomas Kuhn.

Popper and Kuhn held differing views on the nature of scientific progress. As seen in Popper’s falsification theory, he held that theories can never be proved only disproved or falsified. Once a theory is proved false we move on to the next. Kuhn, on the other, hand argued a new paradigm may solve puzzles better than the old one but you cannot describe the old science as false. Both seem to share the Kantian idea that the really real, independently existing world is completely unknowable. Kuhn further asserts that the empirical world, which is knowable, is partly constructed by our categories and concepts. The fundamental difference in their views are best stated in Kuhn’s own words, “A very different approach to this whole network of problems has been developed by Karl R. Popper who denies the existence of any verification procedures at all. Instead he emphasizes the importance of falsification, i.e., of the test that, because its outcome is negative, necessitates the rejection of an established theory. Clearly, the role thus attributed to falsification is much like the one this essay assigns to anomalous experiences, i.e., to experiences that, by evoking crisis, prepare the way for a new theory. Nevertheless, anomalous experiences may not be identified with falsifying ones.”(Kuhn, 145) As seen by this passage, the fundamental difference between Popper and Kuhn is that Popper disregards “verification” and Kuhn asserts that “falsification” only takes place once a

The world of science, as we know it today, is a difficult subject to grasp. So many new ideas are present and these new ideas are not interchangeable. Some parts do work together although as a whole they don’t fully coincide with each other. The three basic ideas that science is now based upon come from Newton, Einstein, and Hawking. I call these ideas/theories “new” based on what I classify the state of the scientific community of today. After looking at what is going on in science, it is clear to me that the scientific world is in a crisis state. According to Kuhn, a crisis state is when science is in the middle of choosing a particular paradigm to work under. For scientists, there is a general theme

We live in a strange and puzzling world. Despite the exponential growth of knowledge in the past century, we are faced by a baffling multitude of conflicting ideas. The mass of conflicting ideas causes the replacement of knowledge, as one that was previously believed to be true gets replace by new idea. This is accelerated by the rapid development of technology to allow new investigations into knowledge within the areas of human and natural sciences. Knowledge in the human sciences has been replaced for decades as new discoveries by the increased study of humans, and travel has caused the discarding of a vast array of theories. The development of

This book, ‘What is this Thing called Science?’ is assigned to write a review on the third edition which was published in the year 1999, 1st February by University of Queensland Press. This book is reflects up to date with day today’s contemporary trend and gives a basic introduction on the philosophy of science. This is a very comprehensive book explaining the nature of science and its historical development. It is very informative and a necessary reference when attempting to understand the how science has evolved throughout time. The book is also well organized, and each chapter is concluded with suggestions for further reading. This book is actually a review on the philosophy of science.

In this section we will compare and contrast Kuhn’s understanding of science with Popper’s understanding of science. These two methods are narrower when it comes to levels of scrutiny. They are also more open and willing to embrace change because they seek to change the status quo which is traditional science. Both scientists agree that the traditional method of science is too broad and ignores many different variables that could change the outcome of the results. They also concur on the idea that a subjective approach to science and reason is more suitable to reach a correct answer rather than shooting wildly in all directions and accepting the bullet that is closest to our target. Kuhn and Popper looked at traditional science as a method based on assumptions and estimates rather than exact truths or data. They do differ however in some ways. Kuhn does not believe that falsifying theories is necessary to ascertain the truth like Popper does. He simply believes that society is rapidly changing and therefore the methods of science must change also. Popper does not necessarily concern himself with sociological opinions or status quos. He focuses more on the procedures of traditional methods and works to disprove theories.