Thomas Kuhn Research Paper

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

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

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

However, Kuhn says that it isn’t necessary to have a full parallelism and that we can gain from relaxing the standard. When scientists change their minds about fundamental matters, Kuhn suggests that this is a necessary part of a philosophical paradigm. He also thinks that scientist’s changing their minds is neither a mistake or all wrong. When crisis’s occur, they suggest what some of the new paradigm’s characteristics will be. Crisis’s are unable to be postponed indefinitely which was demonstrated by Newtonian dynamics. Again, Kuhn suggests that the world doesn’t change when a paradigm changes but the scientist tends to in a different world because their viewpoint changes with the paradigm. Normal science is clarified as aiming to refine, extend, and articulate a paradigm. With paradigms, the interpretation of data is crucial to articulating a paradigm. However, data isn’t able to correct a paradigm. Therefore, normal science leads to the acknowledgement of anomalies and then to

A thorough understanding of what Kuhn is communicating when he uses the terms normal science and paradigm is a vital component for individuals that read The Structure of Scientific Revolutions. By understanding what Kuhn means when he uses these two terms, one should be enabled to, perhaps, more accurately fully extract and understand the argument that Kuhn is making within this book. According to the book, the term normal science is used to mean, “research firmly based upon one or more past scientific achievements, achievements that some particular scientific community acknowledges for a time as supplying the

In recent times, there have been three individuals who have provided their interpretations on that structures of science. Thomas Kuhn developed the idea of paradigms, which are nested concepts for looking at the world, and later would propose the idea paradigm shifts for what he called the Kuhn Cycle. Following Kuhn's work, Imre Lakatos and Larry Laudan created their own analysis on scientific structures using Kuhn's work as a base for their own. Lakatos and Laudan both attempted to rationalize and improve on Kuhn's work. In this essay, I will attempt to analyze the differences in Kuhn's work as compared to Lakatos and Laudan and explain which account of scientific structures is the most persuasive to believe in.

In his paper, Kuhn discusses how measurement has functioned in physical science, normal and crisis state, and what the source of its special efficacy has been. Here a measurement always produces an actual number.

Instead, science and knowledge can and need to be depicted in a different light, which entails changes in the notions of objectivity, validity, reliability, and truth, rather than obliteration of these notions. It is quite telling that this was apparently clear to many scholars, already in the early twentieth century, who pioneered some of the most significant breakthroughs across humanities and sciences. For example, when William James stated in 1907, quite poetically and prophetically, that “[p]urely objective truth . . . is nowhere to be found” because “the trail of the human serpent is . . . over everything” (p. 60), this position did not imply a rejection of knowledge pursuits and of truth. Or, when Lev Vygotsky wrote that “everything described as a fact is already a theory” (1997a, p. 249) and that “pure objectivity in the educator is utter nonsense” (1997c, p. 349), he was not dismissing science and objectivity. Similarly, when Niels Bohr accepted the radical premise that “[i]t is wrong to think that the task of physics is to find out how nature is” (quoted in Newton, 2009, p. 40), independently of our questions, instruments, and methodologies, this did not imply the impossibility of physics but instead, laid grounds for its most significant

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.

The observation of nature and the formulation of a hypothesis is the back bone of many scientific experiments today. This allows for many observers or scientists to product a conclusion based on statistical results of the phenomenal (SOURCE). The result of the scientific method has produced much technological advancement and has solved many practical problems (Bocking, 2006). Many inventions by science has given power to scientist and their work, this “authority of science” as Bocking (2006) describes it, allows power to reside in science and allows for it to be trustworthy enough to be part of many political decisions. This authority has placed a status on science as a provider of reliable knowledge (Bocking, 2006). In many

In order to understand paradigm shifts, one must look at normal science and how its impact on the scientific community. Kuhn defines normal science 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 builds facts and knowledge within a set of guidelines, or paradigms.

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

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.