8/14/2019 Kuhn(1) Scribd.pdf

1/2

The Structure of Scientific Revolutions(part 1)

This weeks reading - the first five chapters of Kuhns The Structure of ScientificRevolutions - is rather expansive, and thus what follows is only a brief summarization of

the key points in each chapter.

Introduction: A role for History - Kuhn outlines his most fundamental philosophicalbelief, which is that a philosophy of science must necessarily refer to the way sciencehas actually been practiced(and thus is subject to historical analysis). In his view,scientific practice can be divided into two kinds: normal research andparadigm shifts.Normal research is essentially dogmatic; predicated on the assumption that thescientific community knows what the world is like(5) and often suppressesfundamental novelties because they are necessarily subversive of its basiccommitments" (5). Implicit to Kuhns discussion in this chapter is the notion thatscientific practice is intrinsically rooted in the existence of a scientific community. It

appears that Kuhn is not interested in the activity of individual scientists, but rather inthe movement of the scientific community as a whole.

The Route to Normal Science - this chapter continues in greater depth on the natureof normal science. Kuhn holds that normal science arises from and follows aparadigm, which is either the result of foundational research in a field or a paradigm

shift. The latter is is like a revolution, in which the views of one party are dismantled andreplaced by the views of another, and then normal science is resumed. A paradigm firstcomes about when observation is described theoretically by scientists and thenaccepted by the scientific community at large. Central to this chapter is Kuhns idea of aparadigms driving scientific practice, rather than the other way around.

The Nature of Normal Science- filling in the finer details of normal science. NormalScience consists of extending and mending the current paradigm. Specifically, scientistscan work on the determination of significant facts, the matching of the facts to theparadigm, or devising a superior articulation of the paradigm itself. Kuhn holds that todesert the paradigm is to cease practicing the science it defines(34).

Normal Science as Puzzle Solving - this chapter seems to me the least compatible(sofar) with conventional scientific thought. Kuhn argues that research which does notconfirm the paradigm is generally viewed as a failure, studies which fail to find theexpected are not usually not published, the intrinsic scientific worth of a research

question is generally not considered when picking projects, but its answerability is, andthat novelty is not sought in standard research. All of the above strike me as either

gross distortions of a more subtle process or flat out wrong.

The Priority of Paradigms - the paradigms of a scientific field which has becomemature are obvious, Kuhn says. But the interpretations various scientists have of aparadigm may be different, and it is not always clear what the properties of a givenparadigm are. Basically what Kuhn is trying to say in this chapter is that a paradigm may

8/14/2019 Kuhn(1) Scribd.pdf

2/2

mean different things for different people and different subfields, and that a revolutionproduced within one of these traditions will not necessarily extend to the others aswell" (50).