Thomas Kuhn

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

Relying on hostile evidence to recreate Marcus Antonius’ life from his youth until the Battle of Actium entrains several issues. This essay will discuss Virgil’s Latin epic ‘The Aeneid’, a kind of propaganda, Cicero’s ‘Second Philippic’ a piece written with personal and political intentions in mind, and Plutarch’s Rome in Crisis regarding Antony. One must treat these sources with caution, not least because of the inherent bias present in their writing. It is necessary to take into account the context, type of source and how the author has shaped material for their own personal or political gain. Limitations.

In Thomas Kuhn’s paradigm cycle, normal science inevitably leads to an anomaly, which eventually leads into a crisis. If the current existing theory in the paradigm fails to solve the puzzles of normal science, it will eventually call for a new theory to take its place. Kuhn further expresses that, although, normal science holds the objective of creating boundaries and structure in the scientific community, and thus, suppressing ideas and findings outside of this structure, normal science is also a driving force of the creation of anomalies and an eventual paradigm shift. Scientists’ ultimate goal is to unravel the truth of the universe. Normal science and the existing paradigm are successful, in the beginning, in aiding and justifying scientific findings of that time. However, as experiments and research methods progress and advance with time, the polished version of the theories and concepts may start to conflict with the initial paradigm. It is the success of normal science, which is inevitable through time, that leads to an, thus, inevitable crisis. The increasing precision and improvement of understanding the paradigm, makes the paradigm an easier target to find

According to Kuhn, science has to develop prior assumptions that reevaluate prior facts before it acquires its first universally received paradigm. An example from our “Case History on the Concept of Electrical Charge” is the discoveries of Gilbert and Cabeo. Gilberts experiment lead him to believe that the effluvium emitted by an excited electric acts directly on the body rather than acting indirectly by setting un an air current that moves the body. But after Cabeo looked at Gilberts work he went to conclude a different hypothesis, which was that his observation that objects sometimes rebound or are repelled by rubbed “electrics” is that if there were no air around the electric, it could not attract the objects when rubbed. Cabeo’s hypothesis

Philosopher Karl Popper is widely known for his rejection of classical inductivism, the idea that scientific knowledge is derived only from observation, and also his support of empirical falsification, the idea that scientific theories cannot be proven correct, but they can be proven false. In other words, empirical falsification means that theories can and should be closely and thoroughly examined by decisive experiments. In Popper’s view, a claim must be falsifiable, or testable, in order for it to be scientifically true; if a hypothesis cannot be refuted, then it is not a scientific claim. Untestable ideas and theories within science are dubbed “pseudo-science” by Popper, because they have no falsification. Things like Anthropology and

Karl Popper expands this idea by saying that what makes something scientific is the concept of it being falsifiable, rather than a method that results in absolute truth (Jogalekar, 2014). This means that in order for a theory to be scientific it has to have the possibility of being tested to be false or incorrect. According to Popper, this is also

I agree with Professor Stone, when he talked about the violence in The Old Testament, granted in just about every story told in The Old Testament there is a war or some other type of violence. He talks about Pharaoh of Egypt for instance and how he considered himself to be God and he appointed top rulers in about 30 towns of Canaan. Pharaoh sent the Egyptians to Canaan and the surrounding towns and stripped them of their best workers and made them out of salves. Moses by Gods hand freed them from the Pharaoh and was tasked to bring the children of Israel to the promise land. Moses got upset when he came off of the mountain and saw the Israelites worshiping false gods. He broke the Ten Commandments into 1000 pieces and this made God displeased.

The scientific model calls for the questioner to test different possible answers to a hypothesis, while testing them various times. This helps to weed out possible correct answers to the question, while also finding ways in which not to answer the question at hand. This can best be illustrated by the famous quote of Ben Franklin; “When discovering the light bulb, I found 1000+ plus ways to NOT make a light bulb, all the while only finding one way to do so.” This proves that although science may come up with many incorrect answers to the hypothesis at question, they are equally as important as they help us to stay away from them in the future. This aspect alone, helps us almost as much as finding the true answer to a

Popper views scientific change as a two-step process that functions in a circular manner – Conjecture and Attempted Refutation. Popper shifts the focus from establishing truth to establishing falsity. However, the pragmatic viability of his approach relies more on scientific behavior than on logic. Moreover, his approach does not account for cases where one theory has to be prioritised over another and both haven't been falsified yet.

Popper’s scientific philosophy was solely based on truth, based on the idea that new scientific theories are generated when old scientific theories are proven to be false; he states that in order for a theory to be scientific, it must be falsifiable. On the other hand, Kuhn’s philosophy was based on thought, and how scientist’s collective thoughts and theories change as concepts and practices change with time. These two individuals have directly opposing philosophies- truth versus thought. Finally, Lakatos’ scientific philosophy acts as a happy medium between the two, describing science and scientific revolutions as both truth and thought, although he did emphasize that truth may be a more reliable factor. Whether it be truth, or thought, or both behind the changes in science over time, it does not change the fact that scientific revolutions happen, and that they will continue to happen throughout the course of

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

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.

-he was interested in two things. He redefined the word “paradigm” to use in science

In his paper Reflections on my Critics Kuhn defended his view of science against the criticisms raised at London Colloquium. He observed that the criticisms were mainly focused on four points: methodology, normal science, paradigm change, and the nature of paradigms. Kuhn believed that most of his critics misunderstood his description of scientific development, and hence he sought to clarify his position further.

If the outcome of an experiment contradicts the theory, one should refrain from ad hoc manoeuvres that evade the contradiction merely by making it less falsifiable. Popper is also known for his opposition to the classical justifications account of knowledge which he replaced with critical rationalism, "the first non-justification philosophy of criticism in the history of philosophy.””(The Free Press of Glencoe,