Thomas Kuhn And The Scientific Revolution

Thomas Kuhn and the Scientific Revolution

Introduction:

A scientific revolution occurs when, according to Kuhn, scientists find anomalies that cannot be explained by the universally accepted paradigm within which science has progressed until that moment. The paradigm is not a current form of theory, but a way of seeing the world of an existential whole and in the form that carries the processes. 

There are anomalies in all paradigms, as Kuhn maintains, is the way of understanding and understanding that they are not taken into account as acceptable error levels, or simply ignore and are not taken into account, for Kuhn, a main argument thatKuhn creates to reject the Karl Popper model of falsibility as the key force involved in scientific change. To understand anomalies they are represented as several levels or structure of meaning for science practitioners at that time. 

To have a better vision of this it is better to enter a context of that time of the twentieth century and be able to show some scientists found the problem of perihelium calculation. Point of the orbit of a planet closest to the sun. The planets of the planets in the perihelium are always greater than in the aphelium (further point), of mercury more worrying than the results of the Michelson-Morley experiment, and others upside down. The Kuhn model of scientific change is different here, and in many places, logical positivists, since it puts a greater emphasis on individual humans involved as scientists.

Kuhn used the optical illusion of the duck-conejo to demonstrate the way in which a paradigm shift could cause the same information to be seen in a totally different way. When enough significant anomalies have accumulated against a present paradigm, scientific discipline falls into a state of crisis. 

During this crisis, new ideas are trying to create the resolutions of the problems presented in that circumstance, perhaps the same ones that were previously ruled out. Finally, a new paradigm is formed, it is a battle where thinkers who carry a debate between the new thought and the one who decides to keep the paradigm already raised. Disciplines when changing paradigms are called a scientific revolution.

Science and paradigm change:

A common misinterpretation of scientific paradigms is the belief that paradigm changes and the dynamic nature of science (with its many opportunities for subjective judgments by scientists) is a case of relativism; relying on the idea ofthat all types of ‘beliefs’ systems are equal. Kuhn vehemently denies this interpretation and states that when a scientific paradigm is replaced by a new one, although through a complex social process, the new is always better, not only different.

However, these claims of relativism are linked to another statement that Kuhn in some way does that the language and theories of the different paradigms cannot be translated from one to another or that cannot be rationally evaluated with each other;that is, they are immeasurable. 

This resulted in a lot of discussion about the visions of the world or radically different conceptual schemes of different peoples and cultures;on whether they were better or not, about whether or not they could understand each other. However, the philosopher Donald Davidson published a great prestige essay, in which he argued that the idea that languages or theories can be immeasurable with each other, would be incoherent. If this is correct, Kuhn’s statement must be taken in a weaker sense of what is often.

Philosophers and historians of science, including Kuhn himself, ultimately accepted a modified version of the Kuhn model, which synthesizes its original point of view with the gradualism model that preceded it. Kuhn’s original model is now generally considered as too limited. Regarding the subject, it also emphasizes that sometimes those who are in favor or postulate a ‘scientific paradigm change’ from a hypothesis or theory with minority support, usually use the term ‘paradigm’ as a derogatory term;in order to exalt their theory or hypothesis as a change of mentality and ideas in the face of what they define as an ‘orthodoxy’ within the scientific community, which would avoid the ‘change of the paradigm’ that they propose or support.

Conclusion:

A paradigm does not completely explain the problems posed within a scientific practice. On the contrary, it drastically cuts the scientific vision to a small scope of problems. Normal science consists in the execution of a set of cleanliness (concordance, prediction and determination of constants, quantitative laws and qualitative aspects) aimed at consolidating the explanatory force of the paradigm. The passage of an old to a new paradigm occurs suddenly by a phenomenon of persuasion that occurs by virtue of fortuitous resources (such as aesthetic reasons, of nationality, of faith, among others) that exert an influence outside the science of science.