Behavior Paradigms

Kuhn, T. (2012). Science. In The Norton reader: An anthology of nonfiction (13th ed., pp. 899-907). New York: W.W. Norton &.

Kuhn (1996) describes a paradigm as the accepted norm of a science. The standards, rules, and scientific tradition one follows in a particular area of scientific study comprise the paradigm. Research, such as the one described here, “is a cumulative enterprise, eminently successful in its aim, the steady extension of the scope and precision of scientific knowledge” (p. 52). The study provided

Kuhn defines “normal science” as research firmly based upon one or more past scientific achievements achieves that some particular scientific community acknowledges for a time as supplying the foundation for its further practice.” He later referred to achievements sharing these two characteristics as “paradigms”. Bawazer’s discussion very well could be the dawning of a new scientific paradigm as discussed by Kuhn is his essay. Kuhn goes on to state, “Men whose research is based on shared paradigms are committed to the same rules and standards for scientific practice. That commitment and the apparent consensus it produces are prerequisites for normal science, i.e., for the genesis and continuation of a particular research tradition” (900). Clearly, the research studies Luke Bawazer’s has conducted could definitely qualify as a new scientific paradigm discussed by Kuhn. Other examples that may qualify as new scientific paradigm are highlighted in Bawazer’s Tedtalk video such as the work of Joe Davis and colleagues, who inserted the gene into bacteria to produce a functioning bacteria radio. Another example of this type of technology highlighted in the video by Angela Belcher, shows that viruses can be used to build batteries and solar cells. No doubt, this definitely the dawning of a new scientific

Paradigms are an intellectual or theoretical view of a discipline based on universal beliefs and values shared by the practitioners. Paradigms are important in any discipline in that they help to answer questions and concerns of the discipline, shape practice, concept, and aid the formation of guidelines. Other

3. Why is public controversy over scientific topics unlikely to simply be due to the complexity of the issues?

Science is one of man’s most powerful tools in interpreting his status in the universe; however, with this great power comes great responsibility, and therefore, there must be reasonable expectations and restrictions, but does that mean that restrictions need to be placed to limit the pursuit of science? Or rather, does society need restrictions to limit how science is to be used? Literature and historical events both point to the single truth that society, not science, must be checked.

This approach is most evidently utilized when Krauss quotes a former president of the Vatican’s Pontifical Academy, an extremely religious research institute which embraces views that conflict with scientific evidence, addressing the theory of the Big Bang stating “As far as I can see, such a theory remains entirely outside of any metaphysical or religious question. ”(5). An authority-figure and representative of the academy is quoted to openly admitting that whether or not the Big Bang happened is a scientific question, not a theological one. Krauss easily meets the qualification as he is a Ph.D. in theoretical physics, and because Krauss’s argument relies significantly on scientific data, readers whose views conflicted heavily with those of Krauss are encouraged to become more open-minded and receptive to the evidence and claims being set forth. In addition, Krauss builds credibility by openly admitting that science’s capabilities are limited by the observations and evidence that can be acquired stating “perhaps we are missing something even today that might have been observable had only we lived 10 billion years ago or perhaps could see if we lived 100 billion years into the future”(18).

In the episode “Scientific Studies” on the tv show “Last Week Tonight with John Oliver”, he employs a plethora of rhetorical strategies to depict his point that not all “science” is necessarily science as most might assume; and how we as a people have become blinded and misled because these scientists are contradicting each other's’ findings. He does so by using humor, making comments that some people might be able to relate to, and by presenting basic logic and common knowledge.

Thomas Khun begins his first essay by affirming that every scientific community needs to practice trade with a set of received beliefs. These beliefs configure the infrastructure of the “educational initiation that prepares and licenses the student for professional practice.” A system of “beliefs is very important as the “rigorous and rigid” education aids in confirming that the presented beliefs are engraved into the students’ minds. Scientists are defensive over what they view the world to be like; and what “beliefs” they hold to be true. As a result, “normal science” will hesitate to accept unconventional beliefs that oppose its foundations. Therefore, experimentation is not about unveiling the unrevealed, rather it is "a strenuous and devoted

Throughout The Structure of Scientific Revolutions, Thomas S. Kuhn goes over a common problem that often exists among science, the problem of relativity in conformation with Kuhn’s concept of a paradigm. Many viewed Kuhn’s reply to charges of relativism as mundane, and that his reply may be inadequate. I feel his reply is adequate in the sense that Kuhn accounts for the fact that different people may have different perceptions of reality and that competing viewpoints may both be valid. Kuhn argues that both the skeptic and the relativist are wrong. Potentially, it could be said that Kuhn does not feel that progress in the field of science is a relative concept. However mainly the argument is that Kuhn

“Normal science” is defined as “research firmly based upon one or more past scientific achievements, achievements that some particular scientific community acknowledges for a time as supplying the foundation for its further practice” (Kuhn 10). Normal science is considered the practice of science within an established framework. The framework is largely built by established theories called paradigms. Kuhn explains that paradigms, accepted models and rules, must be in place in order for science to operate (Kuhn 11). A consensus among scientists in a discipline that a certain theory best explains a certain phenomenon give rise to the paradigm. Through the practice of normal science, scientists base their findings on the established paradigms and set out to explain phenomena in terms of the standard models. Many times, normal science results only in the established paradigm being reified. Contrastly, new scientific discovery occurs when researchers stray from the conventions (Kuhn 41). Helmreich diverges from this standard model of discovering new findings as he challenges commonly held beliefs, the paradigms, before a crisis prompts a new explanation. He has a preemptive approach that does not require an old theory to fail before a new one is presented, which would suggest that novel ideas could be proposed at

To begin, Kuhn’s model addresses how scientists arrive at new knowledge from periodic revolutions or “paradigm shifts.” “Normal science” is research based on achievements where established rules and standards leave little disagreement among practitioners concerning the fundamentals. Consequently, problem solving uses a predetermined solution that generally fails to account for anomalies. Scientists become aware of this, yet they hold on to the existing theory. This continues until the theory weakens and other possibilities are considered. At a given point, crisis occurs, which may result in a revolution and the subsequent redefining of science and rewriting of texts within the subject area.

Marshall Sahlins’ has a quote that we stand on the shoulders of giants to shit on their heads reflects the idea of paradigm shift. The shoulders personify the collective knowledge of those researchers before us, as students it is where we gain our information. It is not through our own work that we initially study our respective fields; we study the accumulation of work that those giants have codified. The shit represents new ideas, criticism, and reworking of the previously held beliefs. The constant questioning of beliefs, seeking new answers is an intrinsic feature of scientific inquiry. This holds true not only in the hard sciences but in the social sciences as well, some may say to an even greater extent, due to the nature of the

A paradigm-shift is where a set of theoretical principles is replaced by another, for example: Special Relativity replaced Newtonian Mechanics. The problem with this is that theoretical paradigms have no common basis; hence, paradigm-shifts cannot work. Special Relativity and Newtonian Mechanics may seem to have the same theoretical meaning, but they do not because the terms of ‘mass’, ‘force’, and ‘duration’ all have a different meaning to different scientists. Science, in Kuhn’s opinion and from what is gathered on theoretical paradigms, does not provide concrete, epistemic, nor empirical assumptions. It does not work best empirically because matters dealing with science must happen with theoretical paradigms, where effectiveness is a problem.

The purpose of the study of behaviorism is to educate the reader with a suitable repertoire of behavioral issues to apprehend thoroughly. "Animals do have minds and feelings, it 's impossible to know this internal world, so focusing on behavior is more productive"