Rationalist vs. Behavioralist Paradigms

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

We discover scientific knowledge in various natural science fields such as biology or chemistry. A common misconception about the natural sciences is that both the knowledge they reveal to us and the scientific method used in discovering this are purely analytical. This means that these sciences are rigid in facts and do not contain any subjectivity or creativity. However, the scientific method is not a rigid system of pursuing measurable facts. It contains fallacies and biases. In testing hypotheses, performing observations, or reasoning inductively, science is undoubtedly flawed and erroneous. Paradigms, commonly seen as infallible and containing rather insignificant errors, contribute to many of the errors involved in scientific

The reading by William McComas covered the ten most popular myths in the world of science. Widespread believed myths such as a hypothesis being nothing more than just an educated guess and the idea that science can answer all questions were mentioned in the text. The author not only lists the ten myths but also debunks them with explanations and states that students such as myself believe most of these myths. He attributes the belief of these myths by students to a lack of science philosophy content in teacher education programs and the misguided teaching of the nature of science in high school textbooks.

They go on to discuss whether science can use literature as theory. They note that science has many influences from the humanities and they try to reason the options of how a literature narrative can be use within the context of science. The first option the pose in to completely ignore it as narrative cannot prove that theories are stories based on the narrative structure alone. Despite this, the author argues that narrative can be useful as the structure can be applied in a way to explain phenomenon. The author finishes by posing more questions about the relation of narrative in science. They then encourage scientist to consider the narrative as tool as means of

Science was born deeply intertwined within the Western cultural realm. It developed snuggly with ideas of European grandeur through the “grace and favor of Almighty God” (Lindqvist, pg.11). “The cultural conditioning these [scientists] had absorbed early in their careers influenced more than their writing: it skewed their research (Freedman). Coinciding with scientific inquiries of

We look to metaphors as a way to understand one thing by comparing it to another thing, and in this case, we compare knowledge within a discipline to the principles of natural selection. The principles of natural selection are the “Principle of variation”, the “Principle of heredity”, and the “Principle of selection”. These principles are evidently shown with the development of knowledge in disciplines with sciences and history as different areas of knowledge. Though, in the development of the knowledge in science are more apparent that the development of knowledge in history. While technological and biological advancements are evident in our modern world observations, human advancements are more difficult to measure as how much change is required

The universal principle that underlines all work conducted in the field of science is that the knowledge yielded from scientific discovery can never be considered to be indisputable truth as it is derived solely from the human perspective of the world and, to the greater extent, the tangible universe. As a result, theories brought forward that are considered to be factual one day can be justly discarded the next if enough evidence is produced to form a realised contradiction. It is due to this, therefore, that science holds great authority over how society is able to perceive its surroundings and consequently, how it allows human society to progress.

The late Eighteenth century and early nineteenth century was wrought with revolutions and massive change. The political climate was in constant flux, but the upheavals were not limited to overthrowing empires, kings and countries, but also occurring in the scientific community. Humanity saw at this time, massive leaps in its understanding of science and its methods. Our species became fascinated with quantifying and measuring the universe with pin-point accuracy. Taking things apart until they could see an object’s elemental components. Huge advances in archaeology, geology, biology, physics and chemistry took place. Books on these various subjects in science poured forth from this era, perhaps one of the most shining examples of this epoch

*Name of the book* was born during of a period of great academic change. Changing ideologies and the resolution of a major debate was ________ throughout this period; *name* was reflective of its origin. Preceding its publication, academics studied and presented the history of science using a particular formula. The history of science was approached in a way such that the biographies of the scientists as well as the social context of the time were the main focal points. (Cite) The acquirement of experimental information and the axioms of the science used were rarely put into question. (cite) How did scientific experimentation translate to scientific fact? How did people actually agree upon what occurred in the experiment? (cite) These were

In social science, a scientific paradigm refers to a framework of the mostly accepted views about a certain subject and its research should resume and how it should be done. There is what is known as conflict paradigm which states that there are two major social groups. These social groups are the ruling class and the subject class. It further states that the subject class is being ruled and oppressed by the ruling class. This has led to a conflict of interest between the two classes.

Sciences are comprised of facts that can change, although It is very unlikely it can happen. Students are taught that the rules are written in stone, or so we think. Unlike like grammar rules in English, science rules can change if a new discovery counters it. Students are taught the rules are all set in stone, when in reality science can change. A recent example is the changing idea of how an atom looks. It has gone through so many different phases of what it looked like. After discovering the negatively charged particles in an atom, J.J. Thomson proposed the Plum Pudding Model of an atom. It was completely incorrect, yet everyone believed it until it was proven wrong by Ernest Rutherford (Nivaldo, 54) . It was a cycle of wrong conclusions until the current model which have been proven by looking at a single atom. Each time it was said here is what an atom looks like! We have finally uncovered the mystery, but to everyone’s dismay, someone questions the so called facts and discovers that it was indeed false. Without people Bohr and this, science cannot move

You know when you discover a new word and all of a sudden you notice everyone using it in their vocabulary? Paradigm shift was something I learnt the first time when my anthropology professor used it, and then three days later I heard my chemistry teacher use it to explain the development in chemistry; specifically, about how famous German chemists would build off of each other’s’ ideas and cause paradigm shifts in the world of science.

Other phrases throughout the first four pages use words like "nightmare", "destroy", "haunt", and "anguish" to attract readers to how seriously society takes awareness of science. These phrases get readers to feel the urgency of the views against science in society. The dark phrasing successfully shows that society has taken a responsible view against incorrect scientific application.

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.