Thomas Kuhn

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.

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

What is Science? When it comes to the word ‘science’ most of the people have some kind of knowledge about science or when they think of it there is some kind of image related to it, a theory, scientific words or scientific research (Beyond Conservation, n.d.). Many different sorts of ideas float into an individual’s mind. Every individual has a different perception about science and how he/she perceives it. It illustrates that each person can identify science in some form. It indicates that the ‘science’ plays a vital role in our everyday lives (Lederman & Tobin, 2002). It seems that everyone can identify science but cannot differentiate it correctly from pseudo-science and non-science (Park, 1986). This essay will address the difference between science, non-science and pseudo-science. Then it will discuss possible responses to the question that what should we do when there is a clash between scientific explanation and non-scientific explanation. Then it will present a brief examination about the correct non-scientific explanation.

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

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,

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

In Karl Popper’s paper “Science as Falsification”, he attempted to explain what exactly separates hard science from pseudoscience. He came to the conclusion that all theories which are to be deemed scientific must be falsifiable. In other words, the theory must have the ability to be tested and proven to be true, and not just deemed to be true because it happens to be true in some instances. Popper’s logic was that the only reason to test a theory was to find a way to deem it untrue, and so theories which are unable to be tested cannot be considered as science. I believe that this was a great turning point in the history of science because there were many theories which were considered as scientific because there was no basis of proving them otherwise.

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

In 1962, Thomas Kuhn wrote The Structure of Scientific Revolution, and fathered, defined and popularized the concept of "paradigm shift" (p.10). Kuhn argues that scientific advancement is not evolutionary, but rather is a "series of peaceful interludes punctuated by intellectually violent revolutions", and in those revolutions "one conceptual world view is replaced by another".(Kuhn, 1962)

In Kuhn’s Structure of Scientific Revolution, he presents that science is a cycle that has a paradigm, which begins with a period of normal science, a crisis, revolution, then a paradigm change.

In the three-part informative bibliography “Karl Popper, the enemy of certainty,” published by The Guardian, scientist and philosopher Karl Popper’s perspective on science is identified and discussed. Author Liz Williams describes how Karl Popper was driven by a passion for learning and understanding the world around him, and eventually grew to reject the ideas of empiricism and positivism. Popper states that deductive reasoning, rather than inductive reasoning, should be used to evaluate a theory based on the idea that proving a theory false provides a stronger argument compared to proving a theory true. Popper also argues that theories cannot be considered scientific theories unless they are able to be proven false, or are falsifiable. They must be able to be tested, and have the ability to be proven false through those tests, before it can be considered a scientific theory. Popper argues that scientific revolutions come about

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

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