The Structure of Scientific Revolutions: Thomas S Kuhn (1)
This was the first of 3 required readings in a class I just finished called "Theories of Science and Technology". It was my first and so far only philosophy class and it changed my life, as did this book. I am posting the weekly required papers I wrote as I was reading this book, along with the comments that the instructor wrote on them during grading.
So far in class and in the reading we have been studying, mainly by example, the definition of paradigm as Kuhn uses it to describe a phenomenon of the scientific community and the way in which science progresses. I am, in fact, finding myself referring to this as "paradigm class". So far we are mainly attempting to determine whether science is truly [objective][1] or if we really do start with what we already assume and go from there.
I find it fascinating and somewhat of a relief to find that Francis Bacon's scientific method is flawed and not generally used in real life. I recall being taught the scientific method in middle- and high school, and yet not truly using it in lab experiments, and wondering what the discrepancy was. Often a lab would try to hide the paradigm from the student by just giving the steps so that the student would blindly perform the experiment, and theoretically see the results without having any bias. Someone had to write the experiment, however, so the paradigm was still there.[2]
A formal definition of the paradigm remains elusive, but we know a few things about it. It includes knowledge of the subject, just as a sail racer studies the theories of the airfoil and other aspects of fluid dynamics, flotation, and even reads books on racing tactics. One must also put the theory into practice, in this case the person actually goes sailing and hones his skills. He also spends time with other sailors, on the water and off, and learns the social aspects. Understanding the "pecking order" is important, as is what to wear. Gradually recognition is gained and the sailor is respected and his input welcomed. If any of these aspects are missing, recognition is not likely to be gained. There tends to be a snowball effect known as the "Matthew effect" where the one who already has the recognition tends to receive further recognition.
One topic near and dear to me that I am thinking about anew after reading Kuhn and participating in class is the theory of evolution versus creation. I have long felt that science has gone awry with the theory of evolution by ["wanting" it to be true][3] so strongly that it ignores a lot of serious holes in the theory. I am now beginning to think that it is simply a case of a paradigm that is not working, just as Newtonian mechanics was before relativity replaced it. [incidentally, I think "augmented" or even "fixed" might be a better term than "replaced", but fear I may be violating a paradigm in doing so!].[4] I think this class may help me with this issue. It is a unique paradigm because the former state (the religious idea of creation) was pre-paradigm, but I truly feel it was the [correct][5] one. I believe that the current paradigm exists [primarily to give us an excuse to ignore whatever higher being there may be][6], and in fact see it as no less religious than the pre-paradigm condition. If I am right, I don't see how the issue can ever resolve itself, and in fact I do not believe it ever will. I do believe that [science continually proves creation and vice-versa; that there is no yet known discrepancy between the two.][7] I think if we could truly see religion as objectively as we claim to see science, creationism would become the paradigm eventually. We cannot, but my observation is that the current paradigm is becoming continuously more widely seen as one that does not work even by those in the scientific community. If this class had a large thesis component, I would probably make this the topic of that thesis.
Instructors Comments:
1) Tricky term. Define it?
2) Good example
3) This isn't it, quite -- they find that it explains things better than any of the competition
4) We'll discuss this later
5) In what sense?
6) This may be a side effect, but I'd say the primary purpose is to explain phenomena and guide research
7) Unclear
So far in class and in the reading we have been studying, mainly by example, the definition of paradigm as Kuhn uses it to describe a phenomenon of the scientific community and the way in which science progresses. I am, in fact, finding myself referring to this as "paradigm class". So far we are mainly attempting to determine whether science is truly [objective][1] or if we really do start with what we already assume and go from there.
I find it fascinating and somewhat of a relief to find that Francis Bacon's scientific method is flawed and not generally used in real life. I recall being taught the scientific method in middle- and high school, and yet not truly using it in lab experiments, and wondering what the discrepancy was. Often a lab would try to hide the paradigm from the student by just giving the steps so that the student would blindly perform the experiment, and theoretically see the results without having any bias. Someone had to write the experiment, however, so the paradigm was still there.[2]
A formal definition of the paradigm remains elusive, but we know a few things about it. It includes knowledge of the subject, just as a sail racer studies the theories of the airfoil and other aspects of fluid dynamics, flotation, and even reads books on racing tactics. One must also put the theory into practice, in this case the person actually goes sailing and hones his skills. He also spends time with other sailors, on the water and off, and learns the social aspects. Understanding the "pecking order" is important, as is what to wear. Gradually recognition is gained and the sailor is respected and his input welcomed. If any of these aspects are missing, recognition is not likely to be gained. There tends to be a snowball effect known as the "Matthew effect" where the one who already has the recognition tends to receive further recognition.
One topic near and dear to me that I am thinking about anew after reading Kuhn and participating in class is the theory of evolution versus creation. I have long felt that science has gone awry with the theory of evolution by ["wanting" it to be true][3] so strongly that it ignores a lot of serious holes in the theory. I am now beginning to think that it is simply a case of a paradigm that is not working, just as Newtonian mechanics was before relativity replaced it. [incidentally, I think "augmented" or even "fixed" might be a better term than "replaced", but fear I may be violating a paradigm in doing so!].[4] I think this class may help me with this issue. It is a unique paradigm because the former state (the religious idea of creation) was pre-paradigm, but I truly feel it was the [correct][5] one. I believe that the current paradigm exists [primarily to give us an excuse to ignore whatever higher being there may be][6], and in fact see it as no less religious than the pre-paradigm condition. If I am right, I don't see how the issue can ever resolve itself, and in fact I do not believe it ever will. I do believe that [science continually proves creation and vice-versa; that there is no yet known discrepancy between the two.][7] I think if we could truly see religion as objectively as we claim to see science, creationism would become the paradigm eventually. We cannot, but my observation is that the current paradigm is becoming continuously more widely seen as one that does not work even by those in the scientific community. If this class had a large thesis component, I would probably make this the topic of that thesis.
Instructors Comments:
1) Tricky term. Define it?
2) Good example
3) This isn't it, quite -- they find that it explains things better than any of the competition
4) We'll discuss this later
5) In what sense?
6) This may be a side effect, but I'd say the primary purpose is to explain phenomena and guide research
7) Unclear
posted by AndyOfVermont at 10:05 PM
1 Comments:
"Often a lab would try to hide the paradigm from the student by just giving the steps so that the student would blindly perform the experiment, and theoretically see the results without having any bias. Someone had to write the experiment, however, so the paradigm was still there."
This caught my eye, as I'm finishing my MA degree (far too many years of school to comptemplate) I think this is sadly indicative of how much teaching is passed on these days....don't think, parrot what you're taught to say, don't go deeper...even more tragically this type of teaching pervades houses of faith just as much as institutions of learning, with results as pernicious to the soul as to the mind...questioning and exploring do not indicate doubt or a lack of understanding, rather they indicate a desire to connect and expand and truely learn.......
thanks for posting these, very interesting reading to be sure
Post a Comment
<< Home