Kuhn’s Science, Essay Example

In Thomas Kuhn’s work “The Structure of Scientific Revolutions,” the philosopher expresses the view that science alternates between what he deems “normal science” and “periods of ‘crisis’” (The Philosophy Book 293). In Kuhn’s view scientist and their work culminate in a specific paradigm in which the scientist’s hypotheses “do not call the theoretical underpinnings of their framework into question” (293).  Science however calculated, does not always adhere to normality—it oftentimes, in the chaos of discovery, begets a more anomalous result. Sometimes these anomalies are considered errors within the scientist’s framework and hypothesis, but Kuhn states that such anomalies are proof “that normal science does not aim at novelties” (293). Kuhn goes on to state that anomalies that accrue over time are destined to reach a “crisis point” (293) and when this occurs, the fallout may possibly be a myriad of this: new theory, “shift in the paradigm,” (293) or even the theory replacing the old theory with enough empirical evidence. Thus, the anomaly becomes the norm. This system of breaking paradigms within the scientific framework is then repeated once there is an established theory. This paper will focus on Kuhn’s distinction between revolutionary science (anomaly) and normal science (paradigm).

Kuhn makes a distinction between revolutionary science and normal science in which normal science is the framework of established theories and paradigms while revolutionary science is the anomaly that occurs as a radical variable. Kuhn’s theory is best described through the “shattering of the classical view of space and time following the confirmation of Einstein’s theories on relativity” (The Philosophy Book 293). In classical science Nicolaus Copernicus theorized that Earth’s orbit around the sun “was a revolution in scientific thinking” (293). It lead to scientists dropping the previously held theory that it was the Earth that resided at the center of the universe and that the sun revolved around it. With Copernicus’s theory, an established paradigm was broken as new evidence was presented in an empirical fashion, and the anomaly became the standard, “after Copernicus, astronomers lived in a different world” (Kuhn, 1962, 116-7). Thus, as Kuhn suggests, there was a severe paradigm shift in the way in which we viewed the universe, the functions of planets, and the gravitation science behind our own solar system.

Kuhn goes on to state the differences in revolutionary science versus normal science. In normal science a paradigm exists and goes unquestioned. It is the staple by which humans understand their physical world. In revolutionary science the paradigm is questioned either through faults in the existing theory, or new evidence that suggests that the paradigm is false, or is not working in some particular way.  While in normal science there exists cumulative progress; that is progress that ends in a theory after years of study and examination. The opposite is true for revolutionary theory as an anomaly presents itself suddenly and without basis, is studied in relation to the paradigm but nonetheless is not studied in the realm of cumulative progress because it cannot be. In normal science there is no variation in the theory; the theory exists empirically and will always exist that way, as it is the staple, rule, and be all end all of human’s understanding of the universe. In revolutionary theory there is meaning in variance as the revolution depends on variables, chaos, or breaking from the paradigm mold. This goes on to Kuhn’s further differentiation between normal and revolutionary science and that is that normal science or a paradigm is achieved with many failures then success—a theory is designed through infinitesimal change through gradual progress of that change while revolutionary science is quick and very immediate almost sudden (Kuhn 1962).

Kuhn’s theories on revolutionary science may useful in regards to the Destiny model. In the Destiny model certain scientific issues/principles constitute the model’s centrality; meaning, there are rules in which Destiny may be fathomed through a scientific paradigm. In order to fully understand this esoteric theory, definitions are needed, but briefly. Destiny is defined as an ideal towards unity that humans strive toward through many generations. Destiny, as defined as an ideal of unity, battles against opposing forces such as strife, human poverty, politics, and general disunity and conflict. Unity may be defined as harmony, and the lack of harmony may be considered a revolutionary science as it goes against the paradigm. Kuhn’s perspective on Destiny then becomes one of ensuring the definitions to each term are in proper order.

Destiny, as defined philosophically and in accordance with unity is divided into four realms: ethnic, national, world, and cosmic. Thus, organization becomes key to definition. These four terms sometimes intermingle. Kahn’s revolutionary science would support the idea of manifestations of change in which in order to obtain the ideal of destiny, certain variables will have to morph and become something else. That is to say that if the standard of society is disunity, then that disunity would have to change in order to destiny to occur, at least in a revolutionary science perspective, and one established by Kuhn. Kuhn states that

“The scientist must, for example, be concerned to understand the world and to extend the precision and scope with which it has been ordered,” (Kuhn 42). Thus, although the definition of a Destiny model is somewhat vague, Kuhn states that something must be studied empirically. A Destiny model then must be organized as if it were a scientific theorem; thus, the delineation of types of Destiny either metaphysical, or physical and to be quantifiable about this research.

When studying the Destiny model then scientists, according to Kuhn, must able to observe evidence unbiased. That is, objectively and not through the scope of their own understanding of the world. This is perhaps difficult to do, as it is difficult for a scientist who has spent a large amount of their time dedicated to an endeavor, and in order to view something new or radical may prove difficult as the evidence may point against the scientist’s established theories. Thus, Destiny model becomes a revolutionary science, “The normal-scientific tradition that emerges from a scientific revolution is not only incompatible but often actually incommensurable with that which has gone before” (Kuhn 103). Kuhn offers up many examples of this rivalry of established theories and revolutionary science in terms of allowing for the idea of a Destiny model: he compares Aristotle’s falling stone with Galileo’s “pendulum” (Kuhn 30).

Kuhn states that most science must be quantitative (Kuhn 33). This applies to the Destiny model as the Destiny Schemata refers to the organization and function of society, which in turn relates to the four Destiny elements. Without criteria in which to be systematic, there is no basis for a scientific theory, and therefore no basis as to whether that theory is a paradigm or a revolutionary science. Lets refer to the combination of ethnicity and Destiny or Destinicity. The term Destinicity must be quantifiable according to Kuhn in order to anything to be established around it (a paradigm or an anomaly). Quantifiable elements in Destinicity include music, art, religion, science, and people. Thus, the framework of this Destiny model is established. Kuhn would state that the difference in each variable hinged upon the cultural or geographical persuasion of the person involved in the study as well as the scientist creating a theory. Therefore, there would not be a centrality in the Destiny model (despite its quantifiable elements) because there would be derision in how to approach each element and define each element. Kuhn would also state, however, that if Destiny model did have a definable capacity, then if rejection of that definition were found through varying elements, the model would then have to be termed a continuous revolutionary science as there would be no set definition in which to term it (as geographical and cultural influences would be continually changing and progresses, shattering previous paradigms) and as Kuhn states in regards to Einstein’s theory of relativity, “we have had to alter the fundamental structural elements of which the universe to which they apply is composed” (Kuhn 116). Therefore, the Destiny model would have to be evolving constantly because its definition is based in human’s capacity for change and growth; an ever cyclical experience without paradigm.

If the Destiny model is about seeking unity in the universe, and there are countless theories behind what unity refers to as well as how to quantify unity in regards to the four elements, then Kuhn would not be able to fully argue whether or not a Destiny model were possible. Within his framework, there would be no centrality accorded to a Destiny model as it’s framework is set up to be contingent upon myriad definitions of concord within the four elements.

Kuhn’s theory and differentiation between scientific paradigm and revolutionary science help science as it allows for thinking outside of the scope of what is considered normal. Kuhn believed that a scientist was prejudice when it came to their own theories, and could not see a the forest for the trees as it were. Meaning that each scientist was prejudice to their own theories and would not allow for divergence, as Kuhn states, “What is surprising, and perhaps also unique in its degree to the fields we call science, is that such initial divergences should ever largely disappear” (17).

Kuhn’s theories allow for divergence to ever-grander scales. Kuhn’s belief structure in science as anything but stagnant remains the course of study today. Established theories should be regularly tested and anomalies should be sought ought so that new theories and discourse can add to our understanding of our physical universe. In regards to the Destiny model, Kuhn’s approach would have been similar to his approach on science—calculated and willing to take a risk. Although definitions for Destiny and the various capacities in which the word and theory may be defined do not bode well with Kuhn’s temperament, there is not doubt that so long as the theory was willing to not be stagnant, Kuhn would have gotten behind the Destiny Model, especially if it afforded a new way to view the universe and the scientific world.

Works Cited

Kuhn, Thomas. Kuhn’s the Structure of Scientific Revolutions Revisited. Kindi, Vasso and Theodore Arabatzis (eds). New York City; Routledge, 2012. Print.

Kuhn, Thomas. The Structure of Scientific Revolutions. Chicago: The Chicago University Press, 1962. Print.

The Philosophy Book: Big Ideas Simply Explained. London, UK, 2011. Print.