Kuhn’s Use of the Paradigm Concept, Research Paper Example

Thomas Kuhn (1992-1996) is most noted for his very influential book entitled ‘The Structure of Scientific Revolutions (1962).  Kuhn was responsible for taking existing ideas or concepts and providing it with a specialised meaning.  He is now closely associated with the term paradigm and the meaning thereof.  It was Kuhn who stated  ” that a paradigm cannot be related  to a set of beliefs or to a list of rules and that it cannot be put into words..”  (Science Encyclopedia, 2010).  Kuhn stated that Scientists have to learn both traits in terms of both scientific concepts and manipulating data to create phenomena.  He went on to argue that science created stable periods, he termed as normal science.  This silence being interrupted by revolutionary change.  This concept of scientific change Kuhn described as paradigms.  The traditional view that science was created in renaissance Europe was challenged by Kuhn who stated that there were multiple revolutions in the history of science.  The concept of ‘ necessity being the mother of invention’ aligns to Kuhns’ views in the sense that most scientific breakthroughs tend to occur during times of war or times of turbulence or crisis.  For example in wartime there becomes a need for better weaponry, medical advancements etc.  Research tend to be focused on key attributes and aims appropriate to the war effort.

In evidencing the Paradigm Kuhn looked at Newton’s Laws of motion and the forces of gravity.  These being used to explain planetary motion.  Kuhn cited example of where scientists and historians follow similar models to form fundamental agreements and consensus.  The very function of normal science being to extend original work concepts.  ” Kuhn believed that during periods of “normal science” scientists work within the same paradigm. Scientific communication and work proceeds relatively smoothly until anomalies occur or a new theory or model is proposed which requires understanding traditional scientific concepts in new ways, and which rejects old assumptions and replaces them with new ones.”  (Carrol, 2009).

The Copernican revolution was considered to be a good example of one of Kuhns paradigms.  Hence the model of the Earth being at the centre of Gods creation.  The model eventually being replaced by the Sun being the central point and the Earth one of several planets orbiting around it.  Equally the perfection of circular orbits, defined by old world thinking, would be replaced by elliptical orbits.  Scientists like Galileo would continue to find further imperfections like craters on the moon.  Kuhn referred to these changes in conventions from old thought to new thought a ‘ paradigm shift’.  Kuhn had many critics on his theories applicable to history and science. Some consider Kuhn to be misunderstood and analogous to that of Darwin and earlier Biologists when examining concepts of evolutionary biology.

Whatever your views are about Kuhn he certainly generated a large following of believers. He equally generated a significant number of critics.  The criticism, however, is not always accurate in its’ entirety and as such this stimulates the debate even further.  For example ” Ptolemaic theory of mathematical astronomy was in crisis and that this crisis led to the emergence of the new heliocentric paradigm. Unfortunate for Kuhn this is simply not true and his claims of crisis are based on his own fantasy and not on any form of historical evidence. His second major problem is his implicit claim that the new heliocentric paradigm of Copernicus quickly toppled and replaced the old geocentric paradigm in a revolutionary manner. This is historically simply not true and can, as a historical falsification, be traced back to at least Galileo’s Dialogo. In fact there were at least seven major systems and numerous minor variation thereon competing for dominance in the field of mathematical astronomy in the period between 1500 and 1700 when the dust finally settled.”  (Wilkins, 2009).   Duncan Parks, a teacher responded on December 14th with the following observations ” Wow – it seems like this is more about what the author is reading into Kuhn, than what his books say. I teach with the text (The Copernican Revolution), and I don’t think Kuhn ever said that the Ptolemaic theory was “in crisis”; further, he describes the developments of Brahe, Kepler, and Newton as “Completing the Revolution”. He describes and gives credit to Tycho for reconciling the Copernican model with a fixed Earth, then points out how Kepler’s model makes the Tychonian obsolete. Hardly a putsch, by his own history.”  (Wilkins, 2009). 

Perhaps the most important point that Kuhn was making is that incomplete knowledge or half-fulfilled answers in science always resulted in more puzzles and questions ‘ … each paradigm will be shown to satisfy more or less the criteria that it dictates for itself and to fall short of a few of those dictated by its opponent .. no paradigm ever solves all the problems it defines .. (T.S. Kuhn, The Structure of Scientific Revolutions, 1962).  It is, in addition, useful to examine the domain of science in the context of Kuhn’s paradigm view.  In order to examine science more closely we can consider this under two headings: (i) The disciplines that belong to the domain of science and (2) How much do we limit the domain of science, for example is it defined only to that of scientific knowledge or does it also embrace cultural and philosophical issues like History, Economics, Philosophy etc.  Kuhn tends to focus more on the hard sciences but science in itself goes much deeper. Science tends to go much broader and deeper into the sociological sciences and as such widens the horizons in terms of obtaining definitions of the concepts of scientific study.

On the surface it would appear that Kuhn’s arguments are prejudicial to the lines of demarcation that distinguish between that of science and on science.  Kuhn tries to avoid controversy in the contemporary fields of science by leaving the status of this open for discussion.  Kuhn does not as such distinguish between pure and applied science but clearly focuses his energies on pure science. However, the fact that Kuhn himself stresses that pure and applied science require closer examination suggests that a distinction does indeed exist.  Kuhn stated ” for ease of exposition I will use science to denote the pure sciences unless otherwise indicated..”  (Hoyningen-Huene, 1993).

Paul Hoyningen commented on the many criticism’s relating to Kuhn’s theories on paradigms and considered many of these to be superficial, misrepresented or misinformed.  ” Far too many points of criticism are mere misunderstandings and the enumeration of misunderstandings in only of subordinate interest in the reconstruction of  a theory..”   (Hoyningen-Huene, 1993). Kuhn seems to have sparked off the most controversial debates within the field of sociological science in the analysis of the development of sociology as a science. The results of these attempts being somewhat inconclusive.  There are numerous views of the paradigm concept of sociology and these tend to vary in accordance with what Analyst is conducting the research. “One explanation of this phenomenon is that sociological theorists have misused the paradigm concept”  (Douglas Lee Eckberg and Lester Hill, 1979).

Kuhn’s paradigm concept has impacted our perception that scientific discovery represents progress in our understanding of the universe.  In this context Kuhn laid down a challenge in questioning conventional thinking of scientific definitions and the accepted norms.  He questioned both scientific realism and the rationality aspect of science.  This change in perspectives has seen an enduring controversy emerge.  ” The challenges facing scientific realism-the idea that guided modern science from its beginnings in the scientific revolution until the twentieth century-are such that it will probably never be restored.”  (Voelker, 2009).  It could be argued that we have gone a full circle from the medieval practice of distinction between scientific theory and that of physical reality.  The concept that no specific theory subsequently does not correspond to reality.  As such a natural phenomenon might well be represented by any number of different theories.  ” The inability to return to scientific realism suggests a tripartite division of the history of science, with a period of scientific realism fitting between two periods in which there is no insistence that theory correspond to reality.”  (Voelker, 2009).

Karl Popper (1902- 94) had disagreements with Kuhn’s paradigm theory.  Popper was mainly critical of inductive methods used in science.  His basis of argument being the logical deductive reasoning of induction or logical problem solving.  His most famous example being the story of the white swans .. ” Europeans for thousands of years had observed millions of white swans. Using inductive evidence, we could come up with the theory that all swans are white. However exploration of Australasia introduced Europeans to black swans. ”  (Jones, 2009).  The point that Popper made is that despite numerous observations in support of a theory, there always exists the possibility that further evidence can refute this at a later date.  Hence all inductive evidence may be considered as potentially incomplete or limited.  This equally applies to the Universe which cannot be viewed ‘ at all times and in all places’.  Popper came up with an alternative theoretical viewpoint based upon the concept of falsification.  Hence it only takes one counter argument in order to falsify a particular theorem.  In the case of the white swans this was the evidence and observations of the black swans in Australia.  ” For Popper the scientist should attempt to disprove his/her theory rather than attempt to continually prove it. Popper does think that science can help us progressively approach the truth but we can never be certain that we have the final explanation. ”  (Jones, 2009).

There was alignment between the beliefs of Kuhn and Popper in that simple observations are theory laden.  As such scientists are considered to have a paradigm or worldly view of subject matter.  Examples being Newton’s mechanical universe and Einstein’s relativistic universe.  Kuhn based his thoughts on the stability or calm periods of scientific advancement that were interrupted by spikes of revolutionary thought.  Although Kuhn was highly criticised for his use of the term ‘paradigm’ he did bring the subject out into an open debate.  Kuhn established the term applicable to scientific enquiry…  “no natural history can be interpreted in the absence of at least some implicit body of intertwined theoretical and methodological belief that permits selection, evaluation, and criticism.” (Anon, 2009).  Kuhn stated the concept of a paradigm shift  where a scientists world is described as being qualitatively transformed and equally quantitavily enriched by the fascination of novelty or theory.  As such by their very nature scientists are not objective  and independent thinkers.  He describes them as beings influenced by what they have been taught from others and solving only problems which their accepted theories fit.  This as opposed to true problem solvers ..  “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.” (Anon, 2009).

Works Cited

Anon. (2009). Thomas Kuhn. Retrieved 1 20, 2010, from Overview of Kuhn’s ideas: http://www.ufoevidence.org/documents/doc1388.htm

Carrol, R. T. (2009). paradigm shift. Retrieved 1 19, 2010, from Skepdic: http://www.skepdic.com/paradigm.html

Douglas Lee Eckberg and Lester Hill, J. (1979). The Paradigm Concept and Sociology: A Critical Review. American Sociological Review, Vol. 44, No. 6 (Dec., 1979), pp. 925-937 , 13.

Hoyningen-Huene, P. (1993). Reconstructing scientific revolutions: Thomas S. Kuhn’s philosophy of science . In P. Hoyningen-Huene, Reconstructing scientific revolutions: Thomas S. Kuhn’s philosophy of science (p. 267). Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

Jones, R. (2009). Science vs. Religion, from the Renaissance to the Enlightenment. Retrieved 1 20, 2010, from Philosophy of Science: http://www.philosopher.org.uk/sci.htm

Science Encyclopedia. (2010, 1). Paradigm On definition, critocism of Kuhns Paradigms. Retrieved 1 25, 2010, from Science Encyclopedia: http://science.jrank.org/pages/7948/Paradigm.html

Voelker, D. (2009). Thomas Kuhn: Revolution Against Scientific Realism. Retrieved 1 20, 2010, from Thomas Kuhn: Revolution Against Scientific Realism: http://history.hanover.edu/hhr/94/hhr94_4.html

Wilkins, J. S. (2009, 8 30). Crisis What Crisis? Kuhn and the fabrication of history. Retrieved 1 19, 2010, from Rennaisance Mathematicus: http://thonyc.wordpress.com/2009/09/01/crisis-what-crisis-kuhn-and-the-fabrication-of-history/