Thomas Kuhn was an American physicist and philosopher who developed influential ideas in the philosophy of science. He is best known for his book The Structure of Scientific Revolutions, which argued that science progresses through periods of normal science punctuated by revolutionary paradigm shifts. Kuhn proposed that during normal science, scientists work within an established theoretical framework, but major crises can lead to revolutionary changes in scientific theories.
The document discusses the concept of paradigms and paradigm shifts. It defines a paradigm as a set of assumptions and practices that constitute a way of viewing reality for a community. It describes Thomas Kuhn's theory that science undergoes periods of "normal science" punctuated by "revolutions" where one paradigm replaces another. Some examples given of paradigm shifts include the Copernican revolution and the transition from Newtonian to Einsteinian physics. The document also discusses how paradigms can shift in other contexts through radical changes in thought patterns or organizations.
THE STRUCTURE OFSCIENTIFIC REVOLUTION -Thomas Kuhn Nouran Adel
Thomas Kuhn is most famous for his book The Structure of Scientific Revolutions (1962) in which he presented the idea that science does not evolve gradually toward truth, but instead undergoes periodic revolutions which he calls "paradigm shifts."
Presentation on structure of scientific revolutionsalmansmd
This document summarizes Thomas Kuhn's theory of scientific revolutions as presented in his influential book "The Structure of Scientific Revolutions". Kuhn argued that science progresses not through linear knowledge accumulation, but through periodic paradigm shifts in which the underlying assumptions and framework of a scientific field are suddenly transformed. The document outlines Kuhn's five phases of scientific revolutions - from a pre-paradigm state with competing theories to a post-revolution state with a new dominant paradigm established. Examples of major paradigm shifts in sciences such as astronomy, physics and biology are also provided.
Thomas Kuhn was an American physicist who radically changed views on the nature of science. He argued that science progresses not through linear knowledge gathering, but through periodic "paradigm shifts" where the nature of scientific inquiry in a field is suddenly transformed. A paradigm is the basic framework of assumptions and methods shared by a scientific community that governs their work. During normal science, scientists work within a paradigm to solve puzzles, but over time anomalies can lead to a paradigm shift opening up a new approach. Kuhn emphasized that science is shaped by subjective perspectives and there can be competing views until a new paradigm is widely accepted.
Thomas Kuhn argues that science operates in two distinct modes: normal science and scientific revolution. During normal science, scientists work within a shared paradigm that provides the framework and assumptions for their research. The paradigm guides what phenomena can be explained, what problems are worth studying, and how research is conducted. However, over time anomalies and resistant problems emerge that the paradigm cannot resolve, leading to a crisis and eventual shift to a new paradigm during a period of scientific revolution.
1. The document discusses Thomas Kuhn's work on scientific paradigms and paradigm shifts. It provides examples of paradigm shifts such as the shift from geocentrism to heliocentrism and the shift from the idea of separate natural laws on Earth and in the heavens to universal natural laws.
2. It also summarizes Kuhn's concept of normal science and paradigm shifts occurring during periods of crisis when anomalies emerge that the prevailing paradigm cannot explain. New paradigms eventually emerge and replace old ones.
3. Major paradigm shifts discussed include the shift from a young Earth view to an old Earth view incorporating uniformitarian geology.
The structure of scientific revolutions (anuj)Anuj Bhatia
This document summarizes chapters 5-9 of Thomas Kuhn's book "The Structure of Scientific Revolutions". It discusses several key aspects of Kuhn's work, including: normal science and puzzle-solving; the priority of paradigms over rules in science; anomalies leading to crisis and potential paradigm shifts; responses to crisis like considering alternatives; and the nature of scientific revolutions as non-cumulative changes involving incompatible new paradigms.
This document discusses the definitions and purposes of history, philosophy, and science. It provides:
- History is the study of the past, specifically how it relates to humans. Philosophy comes from the Greek word for "love of wisdom" and investigates the most general questions about existence, knowledge, values, and meaning.
- Science is a disciplined attempt to find out what exists, how things work, why they work that way, what could exist, how things could work if they did exist, what cannot exist and why. It progresses from craft to establishing theories through representation, ontology, and techniques for modeling.
- The boundaries between craft, science and engineering are blurred. Philosophy of science is concerned with
The document discusses the concept of paradigms and paradigm shifts. It defines a paradigm as a set of assumptions and practices that constitute a way of viewing reality for a community. It describes Thomas Kuhn's theory that science undergoes periods of "normal science" punctuated by "revolutions" where one paradigm replaces another. Some examples given of paradigm shifts include the Copernican revolution and the transition from Newtonian to Einsteinian physics. The document also discusses how paradigms can shift in other contexts through radical changes in thought patterns or organizations.
THE STRUCTURE OFSCIENTIFIC REVOLUTION -Thomas Kuhn Nouran Adel
Thomas Kuhn is most famous for his book The Structure of Scientific Revolutions (1962) in which he presented the idea that science does not evolve gradually toward truth, but instead undergoes periodic revolutions which he calls "paradigm shifts."
Presentation on structure of scientific revolutionsalmansmd
This document summarizes Thomas Kuhn's theory of scientific revolutions as presented in his influential book "The Structure of Scientific Revolutions". Kuhn argued that science progresses not through linear knowledge accumulation, but through periodic paradigm shifts in which the underlying assumptions and framework of a scientific field are suddenly transformed. The document outlines Kuhn's five phases of scientific revolutions - from a pre-paradigm state with competing theories to a post-revolution state with a new dominant paradigm established. Examples of major paradigm shifts in sciences such as astronomy, physics and biology are also provided.
Thomas Kuhn was an American physicist who radically changed views on the nature of science. He argued that science progresses not through linear knowledge gathering, but through periodic "paradigm shifts" where the nature of scientific inquiry in a field is suddenly transformed. A paradigm is the basic framework of assumptions and methods shared by a scientific community that governs their work. During normal science, scientists work within a paradigm to solve puzzles, but over time anomalies can lead to a paradigm shift opening up a new approach. Kuhn emphasized that science is shaped by subjective perspectives and there can be competing views until a new paradigm is widely accepted.
Thomas Kuhn argues that science operates in two distinct modes: normal science and scientific revolution. During normal science, scientists work within a shared paradigm that provides the framework and assumptions for their research. The paradigm guides what phenomena can be explained, what problems are worth studying, and how research is conducted. However, over time anomalies and resistant problems emerge that the paradigm cannot resolve, leading to a crisis and eventual shift to a new paradigm during a period of scientific revolution.
1. The document discusses Thomas Kuhn's work on scientific paradigms and paradigm shifts. It provides examples of paradigm shifts such as the shift from geocentrism to heliocentrism and the shift from the idea of separate natural laws on Earth and in the heavens to universal natural laws.
2. It also summarizes Kuhn's concept of normal science and paradigm shifts occurring during periods of crisis when anomalies emerge that the prevailing paradigm cannot explain. New paradigms eventually emerge and replace old ones.
3. Major paradigm shifts discussed include the shift from a young Earth view to an old Earth view incorporating uniformitarian geology.
The structure of scientific revolutions (anuj)Anuj Bhatia
This document summarizes chapters 5-9 of Thomas Kuhn's book "The Structure of Scientific Revolutions". It discusses several key aspects of Kuhn's work, including: normal science and puzzle-solving; the priority of paradigms over rules in science; anomalies leading to crisis and potential paradigm shifts; responses to crisis like considering alternatives; and the nature of scientific revolutions as non-cumulative changes involving incompatible new paradigms.
This document discusses the definitions and purposes of history, philosophy, and science. It provides:
- History is the study of the past, specifically how it relates to humans. Philosophy comes from the Greek word for "love of wisdom" and investigates the most general questions about existence, knowledge, values, and meaning.
- Science is a disciplined attempt to find out what exists, how things work, why they work that way, what could exist, how things could work if they did exist, what cannot exist and why. It progresses from craft to establishing theories through representation, ontology, and techniques for modeling.
- The boundaries between craft, science and engineering are blurred. Philosophy of science is concerned with
This document provides summaries of various philosophical concepts and movements throughout history. It includes brief explanations of concepts like empiricism, rationalism, positivism, utilitarianism, idealism, pragmatism, existentialism, structural realism, and phenomenology. For each entry it lists one or two prominent thinkers associated with that concept. The document serves as a high-level overview of major topics and figures in the history of philosophy.
Thomas Kuhn & Paradigms (By Kris Haamer)Kris Haamer
Thomas Kuhn was a physicist and philosopher known for his work "The Structure of Scientific Revolutions" which introduced the concepts of paradigms and paradigm shifts. A paradigm is a universally accepted scientific theory that provides models and solutions for a community of scientists. According to Kuhn, normal science operates within an existing paradigm until anomalies emerge that cannot be explained, creating a crisis and leading to a new paradigm that better explains the facts. This process of paradigm shifts advances scientific understanding as new theories provide more accurate ways of viewing reality.
The document discusses Karl Popper's theory of falsification and its evolution over time. It explains that Popper argued scientific theories are never truly verified, but can be falsified by a single contradictory observation. Theories should aim to be falsifiable to be considered scientific. Later, Popper acknowledged natural selection as testable despite initial doubts. The document also examines criticisms of falsification, such as that theories may not be falsified even when observations contradict them, depending on how the theory is modified in response.
This document provides an overview of philosophy of science. It discusses science as a body of knowledge obtained through observation and methods. Philosophers of science are concerned with determining the nature of the world, right ways of thinking, determining right from wrong, the best form of government, beauty, and knowledge. The document examines functional assumptions in philosophy of science, whether certain questions are scientific or philosophical, and critiques of philosophy of science as being normative or descriptive. It also discusses theories, scientific communities, social constructionism, Thomas Kuhn's work on paradigms and scientific revolutions, and Karl Popper's views on falsification in science.
A brief introduction do the Philosophy of Science for information scientists and technologists. This is also Chapter 1 of my course on Qualitative Research.
Auguste Comte was a French philosopher who founded the doctrine of positivism. He proposed that societies progress through theological, metaphysical, and positive stages of development. In the theological stage, man believes in supernatural powers, while in the metaphysical stage man questions beliefs but lacks evidence. In the positive stage, scientific methods are used to solve social problems. Comte's positivism asserted that valid knowledge comes only from sensory experience and logic. He influenced many later 19th century thinkers and the development of sociology as a discipline.
This document provides an overview of positivism and logical positivism. It discusses the key figures behind each approach, such as Auguste Comte for positivism and members of the Vienna Circle like Carnap, Hahn, and Neurath for logical positivism. The document also outlines some of the main ideas associated with each, such as positivism's emphasis on empirical facts and logical positivism's principle of verifiability. Finally, it notes that while positivism and logical positivism aimed to eliminate non-empirical philosophy, they have both faced criticism for being too reductionist in their views.
This document discusses research paradigms and provides examples of different types of research paradigms. It begins by defining what a research paradigm is - the underlying beliefs, assumptions, and methodologies that guide research. It then outlines four main research paradigms: positivism/quantitative, interpretivist/qualitative, critical, and pragmatic. For each paradigm, it describes the ontology (view of reality), epistemology (relationship between the researcher and what is being researched), and methodology. It provides examples of research questions and studies for each paradigm. The document discusses the strengths and limitations of different paradigms and whether they meet the needs of practicing educators.
Positivism is a philosophical system rooted in science and empiricism that rejects metaphysics and holds that knowledge is only derived from logical reasoning and sensory experience. It views society and the physical world as operating according to general laws that can be observed and measured scientifically. Some key aspects of positivism include its rejection of introspection and intuition, focus on observation and experimentation to verify phenomena, and belief that anything beyond direct observation cannot be known. Logical positivism refined these ideas, proposing that philosophy should only consider statements that are verifiable or confirmable through observation or experiment.
philosophy of science, Falsification theory, Karl popperKhalid Zaffar
The document discusses falsification and its importance in philosophy of science. [1] Falsification proposes that for a theory to be considered scientific, it must be possible to prove it false through testing or observation. [2] Karl Popper introduced the principle of falsification, stating that a theory is scientific if we can identify potential evidence that could show it is incorrect. [3] Being able to falsify theories allows them to be rigorously tested and improved in science, distinguishing science from non-falsifiable claims.
University First Year level revision notes on Classical Sociological Theory. Contains notes on Karl Marx, Max Weber and Emile Durkheim among others. All notes come from university lecture notes and online research. Includes quotes from sociologists, a history of sociology, keywords and theories and ideas.
The history of science developed as an academic discipline in the early 20th century as the role of science changed. Two influential events in the 1930s helped establish the field's focus on external influences on science: Boris Hessen argued that Newton's work was influenced by 17th century industry, and Ludwik Fleck presented the social nature of scientific knowledge and thought styles. After WWII, Vannevar Bush and James Conant encouraged the study of history of science to improve understanding of science. Thomas Kuhn's 1962 book challenged the view of science as a linear march of progress, arguing scientific revolutions occurred through paradigm shifts, influencing views of science outside academia.
Epistemology of positivism and post positivism Nasif Chowdhury
This document provides an overview of epistemological foundations from rationalism to positivism and beyond. It discusses rationalist approaches from Descartes that sought to deduce knowledge from reason and certainty. It then examines empiricist views from Locke that knowledge comes from sensory experience. Positivism developed as an epistemology where genuine knowledge is based on observable evidence through science. However, later post-positivist thinkers like Popper, Quine, and Kuhn challenged positivism by arguing theories cannot be fully verified and scientific paradigms change for complex non-rational reasons.
History and Philosophy of Science: Origin of ScienceLarry Sultiz
The document discusses the origins of science. It argues that science arose from Christian doctrine, as Christians believed God created nature and it was important to study His creation. In the 6th century, monks began studying passages in Psalms about God establishing order in the earth. This led them to search for order in nature through experimentation and measurement, establishing the scientific method. Notable early scientists mentioned include Copernicus, Kepler, Galileo, and Newton. The document asserts that science was institutionalized in Europe but not other societies, and attributes this to Christian beliefs about nature.
The course covers the philosophy of science through 17 units organized into 3 parts. Students will study the background of scientific theory and 4 main paradigms of social sciences. Assessment includes reading assignments, 3 case studies, discussion participation, and a take-home exam with case study that must receive a 5.5 or higher to pass.
Relationship between religion and scienceFawad Kiyani
The relationship between religion and science has been debated since antiquity. Perspectives vary widely between cultures and eras, from viewing the relationship as one of conflict to one of harmony or independence. Elements of the scientific method originated with ancient Christian, Islamic, and pagan scholars. Views on the relationship also differ between religious traditions, with some embracing science and others viewing it as incompatible or secondary to religion. Modern frameworks for understanding the relationship include seeing science and religion as addressing different aspects of human experience, in dialogue, or integrated in some way.
Sociology of knowledge is the study of how social contexts and structures influence human thought. It presumes that knowledge has a social component and is shaped by economic, religious, political and other social interests. Early thinkers like Vico and Marx recognized the role of society in shaping beliefs, though Marx's view that all knowledge is distorted by class interests is now seen as untenable. Durkheim argued that perception and experience are derived from social structures, which may be true for simple societies but not complex ones. The foundations of sociology of knowledge were established by Karl Mannheim in the 1930s and 1950s as he tried to systematically address the relationship between society and knowledge, though the problems it raises remain largely unsolved.
This document discusses the philosophy of Karl Popper and his contributions to epistemology. It outlines Popper's rejection of inductivism and verificationism, and his proposal of falsificationism as a criterion for scientific theories. Popper argued that a theory is scientific if it can be falsified, not verified, by empirical tests. The document also reviews criticisms of Popper's views from thinkers like Kuhn, Feyerabend and others.
An overview of the Scientific Revolution to go with lesson plans on the subject at the History Teaching Institute at Ohio State University
http://hti.osu.edu/scientificrevolution/lesson_plans
The document discusses key figures of the Scientific Revolution including Copernicus, Brahe, Kepler, Galileo, Newton, Bacon, and Descartes. It outlines their major contributions which challenged the Ptolemaic view of the universe and established new theories of astronomy, physics, and the scientific method through observation, experimentation, and mathematics.
This document provides summaries of various philosophical concepts and movements throughout history. It includes brief explanations of concepts like empiricism, rationalism, positivism, utilitarianism, idealism, pragmatism, existentialism, structural realism, and phenomenology. For each entry it lists one or two prominent thinkers associated with that concept. The document serves as a high-level overview of major topics and figures in the history of philosophy.
Thomas Kuhn & Paradigms (By Kris Haamer)Kris Haamer
Thomas Kuhn was a physicist and philosopher known for his work "The Structure of Scientific Revolutions" which introduced the concepts of paradigms and paradigm shifts. A paradigm is a universally accepted scientific theory that provides models and solutions for a community of scientists. According to Kuhn, normal science operates within an existing paradigm until anomalies emerge that cannot be explained, creating a crisis and leading to a new paradigm that better explains the facts. This process of paradigm shifts advances scientific understanding as new theories provide more accurate ways of viewing reality.
The document discusses Karl Popper's theory of falsification and its evolution over time. It explains that Popper argued scientific theories are never truly verified, but can be falsified by a single contradictory observation. Theories should aim to be falsifiable to be considered scientific. Later, Popper acknowledged natural selection as testable despite initial doubts. The document also examines criticisms of falsification, such as that theories may not be falsified even when observations contradict them, depending on how the theory is modified in response.
This document provides an overview of philosophy of science. It discusses science as a body of knowledge obtained through observation and methods. Philosophers of science are concerned with determining the nature of the world, right ways of thinking, determining right from wrong, the best form of government, beauty, and knowledge. The document examines functional assumptions in philosophy of science, whether certain questions are scientific or philosophical, and critiques of philosophy of science as being normative or descriptive. It also discusses theories, scientific communities, social constructionism, Thomas Kuhn's work on paradigms and scientific revolutions, and Karl Popper's views on falsification in science.
A brief introduction do the Philosophy of Science for information scientists and technologists. This is also Chapter 1 of my course on Qualitative Research.
Auguste Comte was a French philosopher who founded the doctrine of positivism. He proposed that societies progress through theological, metaphysical, and positive stages of development. In the theological stage, man believes in supernatural powers, while in the metaphysical stage man questions beliefs but lacks evidence. In the positive stage, scientific methods are used to solve social problems. Comte's positivism asserted that valid knowledge comes only from sensory experience and logic. He influenced many later 19th century thinkers and the development of sociology as a discipline.
This document provides an overview of positivism and logical positivism. It discusses the key figures behind each approach, such as Auguste Comte for positivism and members of the Vienna Circle like Carnap, Hahn, and Neurath for logical positivism. The document also outlines some of the main ideas associated with each, such as positivism's emphasis on empirical facts and logical positivism's principle of verifiability. Finally, it notes that while positivism and logical positivism aimed to eliminate non-empirical philosophy, they have both faced criticism for being too reductionist in their views.
This document discusses research paradigms and provides examples of different types of research paradigms. It begins by defining what a research paradigm is - the underlying beliefs, assumptions, and methodologies that guide research. It then outlines four main research paradigms: positivism/quantitative, interpretivist/qualitative, critical, and pragmatic. For each paradigm, it describes the ontology (view of reality), epistemology (relationship between the researcher and what is being researched), and methodology. It provides examples of research questions and studies for each paradigm. The document discusses the strengths and limitations of different paradigms and whether they meet the needs of practicing educators.
Positivism is a philosophical system rooted in science and empiricism that rejects metaphysics and holds that knowledge is only derived from logical reasoning and sensory experience. It views society and the physical world as operating according to general laws that can be observed and measured scientifically. Some key aspects of positivism include its rejection of introspection and intuition, focus on observation and experimentation to verify phenomena, and belief that anything beyond direct observation cannot be known. Logical positivism refined these ideas, proposing that philosophy should only consider statements that are verifiable or confirmable through observation or experiment.
philosophy of science, Falsification theory, Karl popperKhalid Zaffar
The document discusses falsification and its importance in philosophy of science. [1] Falsification proposes that for a theory to be considered scientific, it must be possible to prove it false through testing or observation. [2] Karl Popper introduced the principle of falsification, stating that a theory is scientific if we can identify potential evidence that could show it is incorrect. [3] Being able to falsify theories allows them to be rigorously tested and improved in science, distinguishing science from non-falsifiable claims.
University First Year level revision notes on Classical Sociological Theory. Contains notes on Karl Marx, Max Weber and Emile Durkheim among others. All notes come from university lecture notes and online research. Includes quotes from sociologists, a history of sociology, keywords and theories and ideas.
The history of science developed as an academic discipline in the early 20th century as the role of science changed. Two influential events in the 1930s helped establish the field's focus on external influences on science: Boris Hessen argued that Newton's work was influenced by 17th century industry, and Ludwik Fleck presented the social nature of scientific knowledge and thought styles. After WWII, Vannevar Bush and James Conant encouraged the study of history of science to improve understanding of science. Thomas Kuhn's 1962 book challenged the view of science as a linear march of progress, arguing scientific revolutions occurred through paradigm shifts, influencing views of science outside academia.
Epistemology of positivism and post positivism Nasif Chowdhury
This document provides an overview of epistemological foundations from rationalism to positivism and beyond. It discusses rationalist approaches from Descartes that sought to deduce knowledge from reason and certainty. It then examines empiricist views from Locke that knowledge comes from sensory experience. Positivism developed as an epistemology where genuine knowledge is based on observable evidence through science. However, later post-positivist thinkers like Popper, Quine, and Kuhn challenged positivism by arguing theories cannot be fully verified and scientific paradigms change for complex non-rational reasons.
History and Philosophy of Science: Origin of ScienceLarry Sultiz
The document discusses the origins of science. It argues that science arose from Christian doctrine, as Christians believed God created nature and it was important to study His creation. In the 6th century, monks began studying passages in Psalms about God establishing order in the earth. This led them to search for order in nature through experimentation and measurement, establishing the scientific method. Notable early scientists mentioned include Copernicus, Kepler, Galileo, and Newton. The document asserts that science was institutionalized in Europe but not other societies, and attributes this to Christian beliefs about nature.
The course covers the philosophy of science through 17 units organized into 3 parts. Students will study the background of scientific theory and 4 main paradigms of social sciences. Assessment includes reading assignments, 3 case studies, discussion participation, and a take-home exam with case study that must receive a 5.5 or higher to pass.
Relationship between religion and scienceFawad Kiyani
The relationship between religion and science has been debated since antiquity. Perspectives vary widely between cultures and eras, from viewing the relationship as one of conflict to one of harmony or independence. Elements of the scientific method originated with ancient Christian, Islamic, and pagan scholars. Views on the relationship also differ between religious traditions, with some embracing science and others viewing it as incompatible or secondary to religion. Modern frameworks for understanding the relationship include seeing science and religion as addressing different aspects of human experience, in dialogue, or integrated in some way.
Sociology of knowledge is the study of how social contexts and structures influence human thought. It presumes that knowledge has a social component and is shaped by economic, religious, political and other social interests. Early thinkers like Vico and Marx recognized the role of society in shaping beliefs, though Marx's view that all knowledge is distorted by class interests is now seen as untenable. Durkheim argued that perception and experience are derived from social structures, which may be true for simple societies but not complex ones. The foundations of sociology of knowledge were established by Karl Mannheim in the 1930s and 1950s as he tried to systematically address the relationship between society and knowledge, though the problems it raises remain largely unsolved.
This document discusses the philosophy of Karl Popper and his contributions to epistemology. It outlines Popper's rejection of inductivism and verificationism, and his proposal of falsificationism as a criterion for scientific theories. Popper argued that a theory is scientific if it can be falsified, not verified, by empirical tests. The document also reviews criticisms of Popper's views from thinkers like Kuhn, Feyerabend and others.
An overview of the Scientific Revolution to go with lesson plans on the subject at the History Teaching Institute at Ohio State University
http://hti.osu.edu/scientificrevolution/lesson_plans
The document discusses key figures of the Scientific Revolution including Copernicus, Brahe, Kepler, Galileo, Newton, Bacon, and Descartes. It outlines their major contributions which challenged the Ptolemaic view of the universe and established new theories of astronomy, physics, and the scientific method through observation, experimentation, and mathematics.
Scientists placed monkeys in a cage with a ladder containing bananas. Any monkey climbing the ladder would cause all monkeys to be sprayed with cold water. Over time, monkeys stopped climbing the ladder and instead beat up any monkey that tried, even if they had never been sprayed themselves. This demonstrated how paradigms and traditions can form and be passed down without understanding the original reasoning.
The document compares and contrasts different social science paradigms at both the micro and macro levels. It discusses several paradigms including the conflict paradigm, functionalism, behavioralism, and perspectives based on human development theory. It also outlines four traditions in working with people with intellectual disabilities - rights-based, skills-based, behavioral, and developmental approaches. Natural sciences are seen as progressing from false to true views, while social sciences paradigms may gain or lose popularity but are seldom discarded.
1. Paradigms are fundamental models or frames of reference that shape how we organize observations and reasoning. They lie behind theories and influence ways of looking at things. Examples include Marxism and structural functionalism.
2. Theories are systematic sets of statements that aim to explain aspects of social life through identifying relationships between facts, concepts, and variables, and developing testable explanations for patterns.
3. Methodologies establish whether theories accurately represent reality in a way respected by most, and vary from highly quantitative to highly qualitative approaches and often combine methods.
A short lesson on Popper's and Kuhn's views on scientific inquiry. Most of the session was spent untangling some common misconceptions students have of Kuhn's views.
Karl Popper proposed that scientific knowledge is provisional and falsifiable rather than absolutely certain or proven true. He rejected the traditional view that science discovers descriptive laws through induction from facts. Instead, he argued that scientific theories can never be proven true but can be tested by attempting to falsify them through experiments and observations. This view resolved issues with the logical problem of induction and provided a rationale for how scientific knowledge advances through falsification of theories.
Thomas Samuel Kuhn’s Conceptual View on the Historical Philosophy of Science ...AJSERJournal
This study emphasizes the Thomas Samuel Kuhn’s concept of paradigm as an intellectual framework.
Philosophers and historians of science, including Kuhn himself, ultimately accepted a modified version of Kuhn's model,
which synthesizes his original view with the gradualist model that preceded it. Think of a paradigm shift as a change
from one way of thinking to another, it’s a revolution, a transformation, a sort of metamorphosis. Kuhn’s influence has
been immense not only in the philosophy and history of science but also in other disciplines. His contributions showed a
shift from historical, psychological and sociological approach to a philosophical one.
The document discusses Thomas Kuhn's theory of scientific revolutions as presented in his book The Structure of Scientific Revolutions. Specifically, it discusses how Kuhn used the chemical revolution as an example, with the phlogiston theory serving as a paradigm that was later replaced by Lavoisier's discovery of oxygen. The document also examines criticisms of Kuhn's view that paradigms are incommensurable and his stance that no paradigm is better than any other.
The Scientific Revolution began in Europe due to renewed legal systems that allowed universities intellectual autonomy free from church control. This permitted the teaching of science and philosophers challenging established beliefs. The Revolution was revolutionary as it changed perspectives on the universe by providing scientific explanations instead of relying on faith, challenging the Catholic Church. Major breakthroughs included Copernicus proving Earth revolved around the Sun and Galileo's improvements to the telescope. Ottoman scholars disregarded European science as they felt it threatened Islamic theology.
1. Thomas Kuhn argued that science does not progress smoothly but rather goes through periods of normal science punctuated by scientific revolutions.
2. During normal science, most scientists work within the dominant paradigm without questioning it, while scientific revolutions occur when the prevailing paradigm is rejected in favor of a new way of understanding.
3. Kuhn's view challenged the idea that science progresses linearly towards objective truths, and sparked debate about the nature of scientific progress and rationality in theory change.
1. Thomas Kuhn's theory describes how science progresses through periods of "normal science" guided by accepted paradigms, and revolutionary shifts triggered by anomalies that cannot be explained by existing paradigms.
2. Two examples of scientific revolutions are Copernicus proposing the heliocentric solar system, challenging the geocentric paradigm, and the emergence of the wave theory of light replacing the particle theory paradigm.
3. Scientific revolutions occur when enough anomalies accumulate against an existing paradigm, triggering a period of crisis until a new paradigm is accepted that can better explain the accumulating anomalies.
The document discusses three major intellectual revolutions:
1. The Copernican Revolution shifted views of the solar system from geocentric to heliocentric, with Copernicus proving the sun is at the center.
2. The Darwinian Revolution provided evidence of evolution through natural selection, challenging religious views of creationism.
3. The Freudian Revolution developed psychoanalysis to understand the unconscious mind, though Freud's theories were controversial and criticized for a lack of empirical evidence.
Paper Writing Service - HelpWriting.net 👈
✅ Quality
You get an original and high-quality paper based on extensive research. The completed work will be correctly formatted, referenced and tailored to your level of study.
✅ Confidentiality
We value your privacy. We do not disclose your personal information to any third party without your consent. Your payment data is also safely handled as you process the payment through a secured and verified payment processor.
✅ Originality
Every single order we deliver is written from scratch according to your instructions. We have zero tolerance for plagiarism, so all completed papers are unique and checked for plagiarism using a leading plagiarism detector.
✅ On-time delivery
We strive to deliver quality custom written papers before the deadline. That's why you don't have to worry about missing the deadline for submitting your assignment.
✅ Free revisions
You can ask to revise your paper as many times as you need until you're completely satisfied with the result. Provide notes about what needs to be changed, and we'll change it right away.
✅ 24/7 Support
From answering simple questions to solving any possible issues, we're always here to help you in chat and on the phone. We've got you covered at any time, day or night.
Scientific Revolution Thomas Kuhn
In Thomas Kuhn s The Structure of Scientific Revolutions, Kuhn states that a paradigm shift is a revolutionary event as it causes the rise in a new era of science. A scientific revolution is when an older paradigm is replaced completely or partially by a new paradigm. As the understanding of science change, the more humans switch their world view. Thus, causing the rift between the support between the old paradigm and the new. When it does, both sides must find reasons to persuade others why the paradigm in question is correct for the new environment. Kuhn believes that all paradigms mark the shift of environmental changes and human understanding and that not only affects physical science but all sciences.
Kuhn believes that the universe is...show more content...He also states that The man who is striving to solve a problem defined by existing knowledge and technique is not... just looking around. He knows what he wants to achieve, and he designs his instruments and directs his thoughts accordingly (Kuhn 8). By following the rules to conduct a scientific experiment, Man must not rely on past scientific breakthroughs as they can change over time. Instead Men must find new scientific breakthroughs for a better understanding of the world around them. Once there is a need for a paradigm shift, it is vital for Men to reject an old paradigm and focus on the new one. In order to solve the anomalies created by the shift, men create new rules and principals that can define it. Thus creating a new era of scientific understanding and being able to move forward from the old
Get more content on HelpWriting.net
The document discusses the scientific revolution that occurred in Europe starting in the 16th century. It introduced paradigm shifts in thinking brought about by intellectuals like Copernicus, Galileo, Kepler, Newton, Darwin, and Lavoisier. Copernicus published his heliocentric model of the solar system, contradicting the geocentric view of the Catholic Church. Newton later established the laws of motion and universal gravitation, supporting the heliocentric model. Darwin introduced the theory of evolution by natural selection. Lavoisier disproved the phlogiston theory and established the law of conservation of mass. Their revolutionary ideas transformed society's understanding of nature and marked the emergence of modern science.
Philosophy of science paper_A Melodrama of Politics, Science and ReligionMahesh Jakhotia
ABSTRACT: The aim of my project is to understand how religious, scientific and political
reasons shaped and inspired the theory of ‘Origin of life and universe’ in a progressive way
and to look it from a philosopher’s point of view. I also want to explore the aspect on what makes a radical idea like Darwin’s evolutionary theory which was different from the existing paradigm to be accepted amongst the scientific community.
The document discusses the scientific revolution and key intellectuals that contributed revolutionary ideas during this period. It provides details on Copernicus, Darwin, and Freud. Copernicus proposed that the Sun, not Earth, was the center of the universe, challenging the dominant geocentric view. Darwin developed the theory of evolution by natural selection, replacing religious design views of creation. Freud developed psychoanalysis as an observational method to study the human mind. The document also summarizes contributions to early science from civilizations in Mesoamerica, Asia, and the Middle East.
This document provides an introduction to a book that presents a new scientific model of the universe based on concepts like zero-point energy and synchronicity. It argues that mainstream science has become dogmatic in clinging to outdated theories and rejects new evidence. The book aims to show scientifically that a predicted spiritual transformation of humanity is imminent. It also addresses the reality of extraterrestrial life and the disclosure of secret government knowledge about crashed UFOs and exotic technology.
Science is a sphere of human activity in which objective knowledge about reality is developed and systematized theoretically. The main functions of science are explanatory and predictive functions. Science is a complex multifaceted integral phenomenon, and the process of development of scientific knowledge is not a unidirectional process, but a nonlinear one, characterized by multidirection. This is a process in which new growth points, diverse opportunities and situations of choice arise.
Science studies not only the surrounding reality, but also itself as a part of this reality. There is a whole complex of disciplines studying science, which includes the history and logic of science, psychology of scientific creativity, sociology of knowledge, etc. However, it is the philosophy of science that studies science as an integral phenomenon, exploring the general laws of scientific and cognitive activity, the structure and dynamics of scientific knowledge, its levels and forms, its socio-cultural determination, means and methods of scientific cognition, ways of its justification and mechanisms of knowledge development.
The philosophy of science began to take shape in the middle of the twentieth century. As a scientific discipline, the philosophy of science differs from the direction in Western and domestic philosophy, which bears the same name and originated a century earlier.
The document summarizes the perspectives of Thomas Kuhn, Paul Feyerabend, and Imre Lakatos on the philosophy of science. Thomas Kuhn argued that science progresses through paradigms and paradigm shifts, rather than through a uniform progression. Paul Feyerabend believed there is no rational scientific progress even within paradigms, and that creativity and social factors are more important. Imre Lakatos sought to balance rational scientific progress with Kuhn's ideas by proposing research programs that allow for development over time.
The document discusses Thomas Kuhn's work "The Structure of Scientific Revolutions" and his key concepts of paradigms, normal science, and scientific revolutions. Kuhn argued that science progresses through periods of normal science within a dominant paradigm, punctuated by scientific revolutions that result in a new paradigm taking hold. His work challenged the traditional view of science as a linear, cumulative process.
1. ABOUT THOMAS KUHN<br />Thomas Samuel Kuhn was an American physicist and philosopher who wrote extensively on the history of science and developed several important notions in the sociology and philosophy of science. <br />Kuhn was born in Cincinnati, Ohio to Samuel L. Kuhn, an industrial engineer, and Minette Stroock Kuhn. He obtained his B.Sc. degree in physics from Harvard University in 1943, and M.S. and Ph.D. degrees in physics in 1946 and 1949, respectively. He later taught a course in the history of science at Harvard from 1948 until 1956 at the suggestion of the University president James Conant. After leaving Harvard, Kuhn taught at the University of California, Berkeley, in both the philosophy department and the history department, being named ‘Professor of the History of Science’ in 1961. At Berkeley, he wrote and published (in 1962) his best known and most influential work: The Structure of Scientific Revolutions.<br />Thomas Samuel Kuhn (1922-1996) became one of the most influential philosophers of science of the twentieth century, perhaps the most influential—his The Structure of Scientific Revolutions is one of the most cited academic books of all time. His contribution to the philosophy of science marked not only a break with several key positivist doctrines but also inaugurated a new style of philosophy of science that brought it much closer to the history of science. His account of the development of science held that science enjoys periods of stable growth punctuated by revisionary revolutions, to which he added the controversial ‘incommensurability thesis’, that theories from differing periods suffer from certain deep kinds of failure of comparability.<br />THE DEVELOPMENT OF SCIENCE<br />In The Structure of Scientific Revolutions Kuhn painted a picture of the development of science quite unlike any that had been done before. Indeed, before Kuhn, there was little by way of a carefully considered, theoretically explained account of scientific change. Instead, there was a conception of how science ought to develop that was a by-product of the prevailing philosophy of science, as well as a popular, heroic view of scientific progress. According to such opinions, science develops by the addition of new truths to the stock of old truths, or the increasing approximation of theories to the truth, and in the odd case, the correction of past errors. Such progress might accelerate in the hands of a particularly great scientist, but progress itself is guaranteed by the scientific method.<br />According to Kuhn the development of a science is not uniform but has alternating ‘normal’ and ‘revolutionary’ (or ‘extraordinary’) phases. The revolutionary phases are not merely periods of accelerated progress, but differ qualitatively from normal science. Normal science does resemble the standard cumulative picture of scientific progress, on the surface at least. Kuhn describes normal science as puzzle-solving. While this term suggests that normal science is not dramatic, its main purpose is to convey the idea that like someone doing crossword puzzles or chess puzzles or jigsaws, the puzzle-solver expects to have a reasonable chance of solving the puzzle, that his doing so will depends mainly on his own ability, and that the puzzle itself and its methods of solution will have a high degree of familiarity. <br />Paradigm shift (or revolutionary science) is the term used by Thomas Kuhn in his influential book ‘The Structure of Scientific Revolutions’ to describe a change in the basic assumptions, or paradigms, within the ruling theory of science. It is in contrast to his idea of normal science. The Structure of Scientific Revolutions (SSR) was originally printed as an article in The International Encyclopedia of Unified Science, published by the logical positivists of the Vienna Circle. In this book, Kuhn argued that science does not progress via a linear accumulation of new knowledge, but undergoes periodic revolutions, also called quot;
paradigm shiftsquot;
(although he did not coin the phrase), in which the nature of scientific inquiry within a particular field is abruptly transformed. <br /> <br />In general, science is broken up into three distinct stages. ‘Prescience’, which lacks a central paradigm, comes first. This is followed by ‘normal science’, when scientists attempt to enlarge the central paradigm by ‘puzzle-solving’. Guided by the paradigm, normal science is extremely productive: quot;
when the paradigm is successful, the profession will have solved problems that its members could scarcely have imagined and would never have undertaken without commitment to the paradigm.quot;
If much of normal science relies upon a piece of equipment, normal science will find it difficult to continue with confidence until an anomaly is addressed. A widespread failure in such confidence Kuhn calls a ‘crisis’. The most interesting response to crisis will be the search for a revised disciplinary matrix, a revision that will allow for the elimination of at least the most pressing anomalies and optimally the solution of many outstanding and unsolved puzzles. Such a revision will be a scientific revolution. <br />According to Kuhn, quot;
A paradigm is what members of a scientific community, and they alone, share.quot;
Unlike a normal scientist, Kuhn held, quot;
a student in the humanities has constantly before him a number of competing and incommensurable solutions to these problems, solutions that he must ultimately examine for himselfquot;
(The Structure of Scientific Revolutions). Once a paradigm shift is complete, a scientist cannot, for example, reject the germ theory of disease to posit the possibility that miasma causes disease or reject modern physics and optics to posit that ether carries light. In contrast, a critic in the Humanities can choose to adopt an array of stances, which may be more or less fashionable during any given period but which are all regarded as legitimate.<br />THE PARADIGM CONCEPT<br />In 1962, Thomas Kuhn wrote ‘The Structure of Scientific Revolution’, and fathered, defined and popularized the concept of quot;
paradigm shiftquot;
. Kuhn argued that scientific advancement is not evolutionary, but rather is a quot;
series of peaceful interludes punctuated by intellectually violent revolutionsquot;
, and in those revolutions quot;
one conceptual world view is replaced by anotherquot;
.<br />Think of a Paradigm Shift as a change from one way of thinking to another. It's a revolution, a transformation, a sort of metamorphosis. It just does not happen, but rather it is driven by agents of change. For example, agriculture changed early primitive society. The primitive Indians existed for centuries roaming the earth constantly hunting and gathering for seasonal foods and water. However, by 2000 B.C., Middle America was a landscape of very small villages, each surrounded by patchy fields of corn and other vegetables.<br />Agents of change helped create a paradigm-shift moving scientific theory from the Plolemaic system (the earth at the center of the universe) to the Copernican system (the sun at the center of the universe), and moving from Newtonian physics to Relativity and Quantum Physics. Both movements eventually changed the world view. These transformations were gradual as old beliefs were replaced by the new paradigms creating quot;
a new gestaltquot;
.<br />Likewise, the printing press, the making of books and the use of vernacular language inevitably changed the culture of people and had a direct affect on the scientific revolution. Johann Gutenberg's invention in the 1440's of movable type was an agent of change. Books became readily available, smaller and easier to handle and cheap to purchase. Masses of people acquired direct access to the scriptures. Attitudes began to change as people were relieved from church domination.<br />Similarly, agents of change are driving a new paradigm shift today. The signs are all around us. For example, the introduction of the personal computer and the internet have impacted both personal and business environments, and is a catalyst for a Paradigm Shift. Newspaper publishing has been reshaped into Web sites, blogging, and web feeds. The Internet has enabled or accelerated the creation of new forms of human interactions through instant messaging, Internet forums, and social networking sites. We are shifting from a mechanistic, manufacturing, industrial society to an organic, service based, information centered society, and increases in technology will continue to impact globally. Change is inevitable. <br />A mature science, according to Kuhn, experiences alternating phases of normal science and revolutions. In normal science, the key theories, instruments, values and metaphysical assumptions that comprise the disciplinary matrix are kept fixed, permitting the cumulative generation of puzzle-solutions, whereas in a scientific revolution the disciplinary matrix undergoes revision, in order to permit the solution of the more serious anomalous puzzles that disturbed the preceding period of normal science.<br />A particularly important part of Kuhn's thesis in The Structure of Scientific Revolutions focuses upon one specific component of the disciplinary matrix. This is the consensus on exemplary instances of scientific research. These exemplars of good science are what Kuhn refers to when he uses the term ‘paradigm’ in a narrower sense. He cites Aristotle's analysis of motion, Ptolemy's computations of plantery positions, Lavoisier's application of the balance, and Maxwell's mathematization of the electromagnetic field as paradigms. Exemplary instances of science are typically to be found in books and papers, and so Kuhn often also describes great texts as paradigms—Ptolemy's Almagest, Lavoisier's Traité élémentaire de chimie, and Newton's Principia Mathematica and Opticks . Such texts contain not only the key theories and laws, but—and this is what makes them paradigms—the applications of those theories in the solution of important problems, along with the new experimental or mathematical techniques employed in those applications.<br />In the postscript to the second edition of The Structure of Scientific Revolutions Kuhn says of paradigms in this sense that they are “the most novel and least understood aspect of this book”. Kuhn describes an immature science, in what he sometimes calls its ‘pre-paradigm’ period, as lacking consensus. Competing schools of thought possess differing procedures, theories, even metaphysical presuppositions. Consequently there is little opportunity for collective progress. Even localized progress by a particular school is made difficult, since much intellectual energy is put into arguing over the fundamentals with other schools instead of developing a research tradition. However, progress is not impossible, and one school may make a breakthrough whereby the shared problems of the competing schools are solved in a particularly impressive fashion. This success draws away adherents from the other schools, and a widespread consensus is formed around the new puzzle-solutions.<br />This widespread consensus now permits agreement on fundamentals. For a problem-solution will embody particular theories, procedures and instrumentation, scientific language, metaphysics, and so forth. Consensus on the puzzle-solution will thus bring consensus on these other aspects of a disciplinary matrix also. The successful puzzle-solution, now a paradigm puzzle-solution, will not solve all problems. Indeed, it will probably raise new puzzles. For example, the theories it employs may involve a constant whose value is not known with precision; the paradigm puzzle-solution may employ approximations that could be improved; it may suggest other puzzles of the same kind; it may suggest new areas for investigation. Generating new puzzles is one thing that the paradigm puzzle-solution does; helping solve them is another. In the best case, the new puzzles raised by the paradigm puzzle-solution can be addressed and answered using precisely the techniques that the paradigm puzzle-solution employs.<br />Kuhn rejected the distinction between the context of discovery and the context of justification, and correspondingly rejected the standard account of each. As regards the context of discovery, the standard view held that the philosophy of science had nothing to say on the issue of the functioning of the creative imagination. But Kuhn's paradigms do provide a partial explanation, since training with exemplars enables scientists to see new puzzle-situations in terms of familiar puzzles and hence enables them to see potential solutions to their new puzzles.<br />USE OF THE TERM IN NON-SCIENTIFIC CONTEXT<br />Since the 1960s, the term ‘paradigm shift’ has also been used in numerous non-scientific contexts to describe a profound change in a fundamental model or perception of events, even though Kuhn himself restricted the use of the term to the hard sciences.<br />A scientific revolution occurs, according to Kuhn, when scientists encounter anomalies which cannot be explained by the universally accepted paradigm within which scientific progress has thereto been made. The paradigm, in Kuhn's view, is not simply the current theory, but the entire world view in which it exists, and all of the implications which come with it. It is based on features of landscape of knowledge that scientists can identify around them. There are anomalies for all paradigms, Kuhn maintained, that are brushed away as acceptable levels of error, or simply ignored and not dealt with. Rather, according to Kuhn, anomalies have various levels of significance to the practitioners of science at the time. To put it in the context of early 20th century physics, some scientists found the problems with calculating Mercury's perihelion more troubling than the Michelson-Morley experiment results, and some the other way around. Kuhn's model of scientific change differs here, and in many places, from that of the logical positivists in that it puts an enhanced emphasis on the individual humans involved as scientists, rather than abstracting science into a purely logical or philosophical venture.<br />When enough significant anomalies have accrued against a current paradigm, the scientific discipline is thrown into a state of crisis, according to Kuhn. During this crisis, new ideas, perhaps ones previously discarded, are tried. Eventually a new paradigm is formed, which gains its own new followers, and an intellectual quot;
battlequot;
takes place between the followers of the new paradigm and the hold-outs of the old paradigm. Again, for early 20th century physics, the transition between the Maxwellian electromagnetic worldview and the Einsteinian Relativistic worldview was neither instantaneous nor calm, and instead involved a protracted set of quot;
attacks,quot;
both with empirical data as well as rhetorical or philosophical arguments, by both sides, with the Einsteinian theory winning out in the long-run. Again, the weighing of evidence and importance of new data was fit through the human sieve: some scientists found the simplicity of Einstein's equations to be most compelling, while some found them more complicated than the notion of Maxwell's other idea which they banished. Some found Eddington's photographs of light bending around the sun to be compelling, some questioned their accuracy and meaning. <br />Sometimes the convincing force is just time itself and the human toll it takes, Kuhn said, using a quote from Max Planck: quot;
a new scientific truth does not triumph by convincing its opponents and making them see the light, but rather because its opponents eventually die, and a new generation grows up that is familiar with it.quot;
<br />After a given discipline has changed from one paradigm to another, this is called, in Kuhn's terminology, a scientific revolution or a paradigm shift. It is often this final conclusion, the result of the long process that is meant when the term paradigm shift is used colloquially: simply the (often radical) change of worldview, without reference to the specificities of Kuhn's historical argument.<br />MISINTERPRETATIONS OF PARADIGM SHIFT<br />A common misinterpretation of paradigms is the belief that the discovery of paradigm shifts and the dynamic nature of science (with its many opportunities for subjective judgments by scientists) is a case for relativism: the view that all kinds of belief systems are equal, such that magic, religious concepts or pseudoscience would be of equal working value to truescience. Kuhn vehemently denied this interpretation and states that when a scientific paradigm is replaced by a new one, albeit through a complex social process, the new one is always better, not just different.<br />These claims of relativism are, however, tied to another claim that Kuhn did at least somewhat endorse: that the language and theories of different paradigms cannot be translated into one another or rationally evaluated against one another — that they are incommensurable. This gave rise to much talk of different peoples and cultures having radically different worldviews or conceptual schemes — so different that whether or not one was better, they could not be understood by one another. However, the philosopher Donald Davidson published a highly regarded essay in 1974, quot;
On the Very Idea of a Conceptual Scheme,quot;
arguing that the notion that any languages or theories could be incommensurable with one another was itself incoherent. If this is correct, Kuhn's claims must be taken in a weaker sense than they often are. Furthermore, the hold of the Kuhnian analysis on social science has long been tenuous with the wide application of multi-paradigmatic approaches in order to understand complex human behavior.<br />Paradigm shifts tend to be most dramatic in sciences that appear to be stable and mature, as in physics at the end of the 19th century. At that time, physics seemed to be a discipline filling in the last few details of a largely worked-out system. In 1900, Lord Kelvin famously stated, quot;
There is nothing new to be discovered in physics now. All that remains is more and more precise measurement.quot;
Five years later, Albert Einstein published his paper on special relativity, which challenged the very simple set of rules laid down by Newtonian mechanics, which had been used to describe force and motion for over two hundred years.<br />In ‘The Structure of Scientific Revolutions’, Kuhn wrote, quot;
Successive transition from one paradigm to another via revolution is the usual developmental pattern of mature science.quot;
Kuhn's idea was itself revolutionary in its time, as it caused a major change in the way that academics talk about science. Thus, it could be argued that it caused or was itself part of a quot;
paradigm shiftquot;
in the history and sociology of science. However, Kuhn did not recognize such a paradigm shift. Being in the social sciences, people can still use earlier ideas to discuss the history of science.<br />Philosophers and historians of science, including Kuhn himself, ultimately accepted a modified version of Kuhn's model, which synthesizes his original view with the gradualist model that preceded it. Kuhn's original model is now generally seen as too limited.<br />EXAMPLES OF PARADIGM SHIFT IN NATURAL SCIENCES<br />Some of the quot;
classical casesquot;
of Kuhnian paradigm shifts in science are:<br />The transition in cosmology from a Ptolemaic cosmology to a Copernican one.<br />The transition in optics from geometrical optics to physical optics.<br />The transition in mechanics from Aristotelian mechanics to classical mechanics.<br />The acceptance of the theory of biogenesis, that all life comes from life, as opposed to the theory of spontaneous generation which began in the 17th century and was not complete until the 19th century with Pasteur.<br />The transition between the Maxwellian Electromagnetic worldview and the Einsteinian Relativistic worldview.<br />The transition between the worldview of Newtonian physics and the Einsteinian Relativistic worldview.<br />The acceptance of Charles Darwin's theory of natural selection replaced Lamarckism as the mechanism for evolution.<br />EXAMPLES OF PARADIGM SHIFT IN SOCIAL SCIENCES<br />In Kuhn's view, the existence of a single reigning paradigm is characteristic of the sciences, while philosophy and much of social science were characterized by a quot;
tradition of claims, counterclaims, and debates over fundamentals.quot;
Others have applied Kuhn's concept of paradigm shift to the social sciences.<br />The movement, known as the Cognitive revolution, away from Behaviourist approaches to psychological study and the acceptance of cognition as central to studying human behaviour.<br />The Keynesian Revolution is typically viewed as a major shift in macroeconomics. According to John Kenneth Galbraith, Say's Law dominated economic thought prior to Keynes for over a century, and the shift to Keynesianism was difficult. Economists who contradicted the law, which inferred that underemployment and underinvestment (coupled with oversaving) were virtually impossible, risked losing their careers. In his magnum opus, Keynes cited one of his predecessors, J. A. Hobson, who was repeatedly denied positions at universities for his heretical theory.<br />Later, the movement for Monetarism over Keynesianism marked a second divisive shift. Monetarists held that fiscal policy was not effective for stabilizing inflation, that it was solely a monetary phenomenon, in contrast to the Keynesian view of the time was that both fiscal and monetary policies were important. Keynesians later adopted much of the Monetarists view of the quantity theory of money and shifting Philips curve, theories they initially rejected.<br /> <br />OTHER USES<br />The term quot;
paradigm shiftquot;
has found uses in other contexts, representing the notion of a major change in a certain thought-pattern — a radical change in personal beliefs, complex systems or organizations, replacing the former way of thinking or organizing with a radically different way of thinking or organizing.<br />IMPACT OF KUHN’S WORK<br /> The enormous impact of Kuhn's work can be measured in the changes it brought about in the vocabulary of the philosophy of science: besides quot;
paradigm shiftquot;
, Kuhn raised the word quot;
paradigmquot;
itself from a term used in certain forms of linguistics to its current broader meaning, coined the term quot;
normal sciencequot;
to refer to the relatively routine, day-to-day work of scientists working within a paradigm, and was largely responsible for the use of the term quot;
scientific revolutionsquot;
in the plural, taking place at widely different periods of time and in different disciplines, as opposed to a single quot;
Scientific Revolutionquot;
in the late Renaissance. The frequent use of the phrase quot;
paradigm shiftquot;
has made scientists more aware of and in many cases more receptive to paradigm changes, so that Kuhn’s analysis of the evolution of scientific views has by itself influenced that evolution.<br />Kuhn's work has been extensively used in social science; for instance, in the post-positivist/positivist debate within International Relations. Kuhn was credited as a foundational force behind the post-Mertonian Sociology of Scientific Knowledge.<br />A defense Kuhn gives against the objection that his account of science from The Structure of Scientific Revolutions results in relativism can be found in an essay by Kuhn called quot;
Objectivity, Value Judgment, and Theory Choice.quot;
In this essay, he reiterates five criteria from the penultimate chapter of SSR that determine (or help determine, more properly) theory choice:<br />- Accurate - empirically adequate with experimentation and observation<br />- Consistent - internally consistent, but also externally consistent with other theories<br />- Broad Scope - a theory's consequences should extend beyond that which it was initially designed to explain<br />- Simple - the simplest explanation, principally similar to Occam's razor<br />- Fruitful - a theory should disclose new phenomena or new relationships among phenomena<br />He then went on to show how, although these criteria admittedly determine theory choice, they are imprecise in practice and relative to individual scientists. According to Kuhn, quot;
When scientists must choose between competing theories, two men fully committed to the same list of criteria for choice may nevertheless reach different conclusions.quot;
For this reason, basically, the criteria still are not quot;
objectivequot;
in the usual sense of the word because individual scientists reach different conclusions with the same criteria due to valuing one criterion over another or even adding additional criteria for selfish or other subjective reasons. Kuhn then goes on to say, quot;
I am suggesting, of course, that the criteria of choice with which I began function not as rules, which determine choice, but as values, which influence it.quot;
Because Kuhn utilizes the history of science in his account of science, his criteria or values for theory choice are often understood as descriptive normative rules (or more properly, values) of theory choice for the scientific community rather than prescriptive normative rules in the usual sense of the word quot;
criteria,quot;
although there are many varied interpretations of Kuhn's account of science.<br />THE POLANYI-KUHN DEBATE<br />Although they used different terminologies, both Kuhn and Michael Polanyi believed that scientists' subjective experiences made science a relativistic discipline. Polanyi lectured on this topic for decades before Kuhn published quot;
The Structure of Scientific Revolutions.quot;
<br />Supporters of Polanyi charged Kuhn with plagiarism, as it was known that Kuhn attended several of Polanyi's lectures, and that the two men had debated endlessly over the epistemology of science before either had achieved fame. In response to these critics, Kuhn cited Polanyi in the second edition of quot;
The Structure of Scientific Revolutions,quot;
and the two scientists agreed to set aside their differences in the hopes of enlightening the world to the dynamic nature of science. Despite this intellectual alliance, Polanyi's work was constantly interpreted by others within the framework of Kuhn's paradigm shifts, much to Polanyi's (and Kuhn's) dismay. <br />HONOURS<br />Kuhn was named a Guggenheim Fellow in 1954, and in 1982 was awarded the George Sarton Medal by the History of Science Society. He was also awarded numerous honorary doctorates.<br />HISTORY OF SCIENCE<br />Kuhn's historical work covered several topics in the history of physics and astronomy. During the 1950s his focus was primarily on the early theory of heat and the work of Sadie Carnot. However, his first book concerned the Copernican revolution in planetary astronomy (1957). This book grew out of the teaching he had done on James Conant's General Education in Science curriculum at Harvard but also presaged some of the ideas of The Structure of Scientific Revolutions. In detailing the problems with the Ptolemaic system and Copernicus’ solution to them, Kuhn showed two things. First, he demonstrated that Aristotelian science was genuine science and that those working within that tradition, in particular those working on Ptolemaic astronomy, were engaged in an entirely reasonable and recognizably scientific project. Secondly, Kuhn showed that Copernicus was himself far more indebted to that tradition than had typically been recognized. Thus the popular view that Copernicus was a modern scientist who overthrew an unscientific and long-outmoded viewpoint is mistaken both by exaggerating the difference between Copernicus and the Ptolemaic astronomers and in underestimating the scientific credentials of work carried out before Copernicus. This mistaken view—a product of the distortion caused by our current state of knowledge—can be rectified only by seeing the activities of Copernicus and his predecessors in the light of the puzzles presented to them by tradition that they inevitably had to work with.<br />CRITICISM AND INFLUENCE<br />Kuhn's work met with a largely critical reception among philosophers. That criticism has largely focussed on two areas. First, it has been argued that Kuhn's account of the development of science is not entirely accurate. Secondly, critics have attacked Kuhn's notion of incommensurability, arguing that either it does not exist or, if it does exist, it is not a significant problem. Despite this criticism, Kuhn's work has been hugely influential, both within philosophy and outside it.<br />CONCLUSION<br />In conclusion, for millions of years we have been evolving and will continue to do so. Change is difficult. Human Beings resist change; however, the process has been set in motion long ago and we will continue to co-create our own experience. Kuhn states that quot;
awareness is prerequisite to all acceptable changes of theoryquot;
. It all begins in the mind of the person. What we perceive, whether normal or metanormal, conscious or unconscious, are subject to the limitations and distortions produced by our inherited and socially conditional nature. However, we are not restricted by this for we can change. We are moving at an accelerated rate of speed and our state of consciousness is transforming and transcending. Many are awakening as our conscious awareness expands.<br />