Thomas
Kuhn’s thesis in The Structure ofScientific Revolutions (originally published in 1962) is that scientific progress is the result of what he
calls paradigm changes. A paradigm is the conceptual framework in which
scientists work. Kuhn argues that most scientists spend their professional
careers working on what he calls “normal science.” The author characterizes
normal science as “puzzle solving.” That is solving problems that are either
raised by the accepted paradigm or were left over during its creation. From his
overall tone, it is clear that Kuhn does not have a high regard for these
puzzle solvers. Kuhn contends that real scientific progress (and the generation
of significant new knowledge) occurs when there is a paradigm change, which are
the revolutions referred to in the book’s title. The classic example of a
scientific revolution is when Copernicus published his heliocentric theory of
the solar system. This oft told story needs no repeating. However, Kuhn notes
that Copernicus’s work was the result of anomalies in the previous Ptolemaic
system. It is the growth of these discrepancies that cause paradigm shifts and
usher in a more “successful” theory (68-69).
 |
| Thomas Kuhn Channels Immanuel Kant |
The salient point in Kuhn’s thesis
is his contention that scientific knowledge is not the product
of a cumulative development (2-3). There is a seeming contradiction in his view
in that he states, “[n]ormal science … is a highly cumulative enterprise,
eminently successful in its aim” (52). Why this is only a seeming contradiction is based on Kuhn’s view of what constitutes scientific
truth and how it is arrived at. While paying lip service to the correspondence
theory of truth, Kuhn argues his thesis from the perspective of the coherence
theory of truth. His primary concern in his work is on how scientific ideas
relate to each other and whether scientists are able to make all of their
observations conform to the prevailing paradigm. As a devotee of the coherence
theory, Kuhn’s focus is on the logical consistency of the ideas that comprise a
paradigm. When the prevailing paradigm can no longer be maintained because of
the increasing difficulty “to beat nature into line,” a new paradigm is
required that can successfully accommodate the new experimental data (135). The
paradigm revolution represents a quantum jump in scientific knowledge, in
counter-distinction to a slow, cumulative process. In this regard, it is
instructive that Kuhn omits one of the most famous quotes in the history of
science. As Isaac Newton confessed, “If I have seen further it is only by
standing on the shoulders of giants.”
Another example of a paradigm shift
that Kuhn provides is the work on electro magnetism by James Clerk Maxwell. In
his discussion on the history of electricity the name Michael Faraday is
conspicuously absent. The inclusion of Faraday, Hans Christian Oersted and Humphry Davy would have
upset Kuhn’s narrative. An analysis of the development of Faraday’s ideas and
experiments would certainly lend credence to the view of the cumulative nature
of scientific knowledge. Faraday’s discoveries are the most important of the
nineteenth century and it did not take long for inventors such as Morse, Edison
and Tesla to make use of them. These omissions on Kuhn’s part make could also be
the result of the “rationalist” approach to science with its characteristic
distain for the “bottle washers” whose experiments have added to so much to
human knowledge and well-being.
It is difficult to overestimate Kuhn's influence on what passes today as intellectuals. His baleful hoof-prints can be seen throughout the so-called "pro-science" marches of a few weeks ago. The belief in the primacy of "consensus" and scientific truth being determined the majority vote of experts on government largesse is Kuhn's legacy to the anti-science and anti-reason movements of today.
No comments:
Post a Comment