The Structure of Scientific Revolutions: Thomas S Kuhn (2)
We are now moving past defining normal science and beginning discussions of how a paradigm starts to fall apart. By now we know that a paradigm must experience a crisis before a new one can replace it. Albert Einstein could not have been taken seriously with his theory of relativity in 1860 because the paradigm of Newtonian mechanics was still, with some exceptions, working. Chances are that even if he had been alive and studying physics at that time, he would not even have investigated relativity because he would have been too busy studying within the paradigm.[1] Science was not yet ready for an upheaval in this field.
What we have learned in the first five chapters of Kuhn is that science does not normally seek novelties or the unexpected. It attempts to show that everything will turn out as expected. Sooner or later, anomalies are encountered, but with much head-scratching the paradigm remains steadfast. Kuhn's card experiment, where red clubs and black hearts are introduced into the deck, is a great example. When the cards are shown quickly, one becomes suspicious, but does not catch the specific problem. It is not until the cards are shown extremely slowly that one notices the anomaly. Once seen, further anomalies are more quickly recognized because they are no longer unexpected. The assumption that all hearts are red and all clubs are black is now shattered. We have a crisis.
While reading chapters six and seven I suddenly realized that Kuhn does not seem to say much, other than with a few brief examples, about how a scientific field in a pre-paradigm condition gets its first paradigm.[2] Chapter seven does say, though, that a paradigm in crisis begins to resemble the pre-paradigm state, so perhaps further reading on scientific upheavals in general will help us answer this question indirectly.
In thinking about my personal question of how the theory of evolution fits into all this, it is beginning to occur to me that the paradigm of evolution may in fact be necessary and perhaps I need not fight it as fervently as I once thought. If it is wrong, as I have always believed it to be, it still can never be replaced until we have tried and failed to prove it right. Note that the Biblical account of creation does leave some questions unanswered, and "survival of the fittest", for example, certainly occurs and answers some of those questions. It is even possible that the "big bang" could have occurred without violating creationism (God had to start things somehow). However, to find a way to avoid a creator at all is a bigger challenge, which evolution attempts.[3] But Kuhn states, quite rightly I think, that making an assumption and sticking to it, even if wrong, ultimately gets us to the truth more quickly.
I am writing hypothetically, because I still believe that creationism will never be the replacement for evolution because of its religious connotations, even though I think it is the "correct answer". By this I mean that I believe that the creation story of the Bible is "what's true". [Can I prove this? Can it ever be proven? Probably not. However, it seems that most paradigms are not required to be "provable" but simply must avoid being disproved, and in fact even disproof is not enough for upheaval; there must be a better proposal.][4] We seek a replacement theory when the old theory doesn't work. What is interesting to me, though, is that the theory of evolution seems to "not work". [What didn't work about creationism?][5] Only that it meant there was a higher being that we must contend with, and we do not want to believe that. It might mean we cannot be our own gods.
Instructors Comments:
1) Yes, exactly
2) Good point. Perhaps this is because he's not really interested in pre-paradigm science (in fact, he says it's not science at all)
3) Good point. In general, science tries to leave God out of it. why do you suppose this is?
4) We'll discuss this shortly
5) Perhaps that it's not clear how it can guide research? What predictions would it allow us to make?
I hope that you'll keep asking these questions -- it makes the reading much more rewarding when Kuhn's next chapter answers the questions you were asking about his previous one.
What we have learned in the first five chapters of Kuhn is that science does not normally seek novelties or the unexpected. It attempts to show that everything will turn out as expected. Sooner or later, anomalies are encountered, but with much head-scratching the paradigm remains steadfast. Kuhn's card experiment, where red clubs and black hearts are introduced into the deck, is a great example. When the cards are shown quickly, one becomes suspicious, but does not catch the specific problem. It is not until the cards are shown extremely slowly that one notices the anomaly. Once seen, further anomalies are more quickly recognized because they are no longer unexpected. The assumption that all hearts are red and all clubs are black is now shattered. We have a crisis.
While reading chapters six and seven I suddenly realized that Kuhn does not seem to say much, other than with a few brief examples, about how a scientific field in a pre-paradigm condition gets its first paradigm.[2] Chapter seven does say, though, that a paradigm in crisis begins to resemble the pre-paradigm state, so perhaps further reading on scientific upheavals in general will help us answer this question indirectly.
In thinking about my personal question of how the theory of evolution fits into all this, it is beginning to occur to me that the paradigm of evolution may in fact be necessary and perhaps I need not fight it as fervently as I once thought. If it is wrong, as I have always believed it to be, it still can never be replaced until we have tried and failed to prove it right. Note that the Biblical account of creation does leave some questions unanswered, and "survival of the fittest", for example, certainly occurs and answers some of those questions. It is even possible that the "big bang" could have occurred without violating creationism (God had to start things somehow). However, to find a way to avoid a creator at all is a bigger challenge, which evolution attempts.[3] But Kuhn states, quite rightly I think, that making an assumption and sticking to it, even if wrong, ultimately gets us to the truth more quickly.
I am writing hypothetically, because I still believe that creationism will never be the replacement for evolution because of its religious connotations, even though I think it is the "correct answer". By this I mean that I believe that the creation story of the Bible is "what's true". [Can I prove this? Can it ever be proven? Probably not. However, it seems that most paradigms are not required to be "provable" but simply must avoid being disproved, and in fact even disproof is not enough for upheaval; there must be a better proposal.][4] We seek a replacement theory when the old theory doesn't work. What is interesting to me, though, is that the theory of evolution seems to "not work". [What didn't work about creationism?][5] Only that it meant there was a higher being that we must contend with, and we do not want to believe that. It might mean we cannot be our own gods.
Instructors Comments:
1) Yes, exactly
2) Good point. Perhaps this is because he's not really interested in pre-paradigm science (in fact, he says it's not science at all)
3) Good point. In general, science tries to leave God out of it. why do you suppose this is?
4) We'll discuss this shortly
5) Perhaps that it's not clear how it can guide research? What predictions would it allow us to make?
I hope that you'll keep asking these questions -- it makes the reading much more rewarding when Kuhn's next chapter answers the questions you were asking about his previous one.
posted by AndyOfVermont at 10:41 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home