progress in science
TRANSCRIPT
progress
realistic irrealistic
pragmatism relativismcriticalnaive
truths
cumulate
classical
empiricism and
rationalism
theories
approach
truth
Peirce
Lenin
scientific realism
practical
success
competing
theories are
incommesurable
scientific
anarchismRescher
Kuhn
LaudanFeyerbend
Progress in science
• Is scientific knowledge progressive?
• Has scientific knowledge always grown? In this respect, how do the natural sciences compare with other Areas of Knowledge, for example, history, the human sciences, ethics and the arts?
• Could there ever be an ‘end’ to science? In other words, could we reach a point where everything important in a scientific sense is known?
• If so, what might be the consequences of this?
Thomas Kuhn
(1922 – 1996):
Scientific revolutions
The progress in science happens
through revolutions.
The structure of scientific
revolutions
• Thomas Kuhn is most famous for his book
The Structure of Scientific Revolutions
(1962) in which he presented the idea that
science does not evolve gradually toward
truth, but instead undergoes periodic
revolutions which he calls "paradigm
shifts."
Some terminology
• Normal science
• Scientific crisis
• Scientific revolution
• Paradigm
• Anomaly
• Auxiliary hypothesis
Normal science
• during periods of what Kuhn calls normal
science the vast majority of scientists work
within the dominant paradigm without
seriously questioning it.
• Most scientists are bricklayers patiently
filling in the details and extending the body
of scientific knowledge.
Forcing nature into the conceptual
boxes• A scientific community cannot practice its trade without some set of
received beliefs. – These beliefs form the foundation of the "educational initiation that
prepares and licenses the student for professional practice".
– The nature of the "rigorous and rigid" preparation helps ensure that the received beliefs exert a "deep hold" on the student's mind.
• Normal science "is predicated on the assumption that the scientific community knows what the world is like" —scientists take great pains to defend that assumption.
• To this end, "normal science often suppresses fundamental novelties because they are necessarily subversive of its basic commitments".
• Research is "a strenuous and devoted attempt to force nature into the conceptual boxes supplied by professional education".
Scientific crisis
• During periods of scientific crisis there are
likely to be violent arguments between
those who adhere to the old paradigm and
those who advocate the new one.
Scientific revolution
• A scientific revolution takes place when
scientists become dissatisfied with the
prevailing paradigm, and put forward a
completely new way of looking at things.
The replacement of the Newtonian
mechanics by Einstein’s theory of
relativity in the early twentieth century.
Summary of Kuhn’s position
1. During periods of normal science, most scientists do not question the paradigm in which they are operating and focus instead on solving problems.
2. The history of science suggests that, rather than progressing smoothly, science goes through a series of revolutionary jumps.
3. During periods of scientific crisis, there is no purely rational way of deciding between rival paradigms.
Assessing Kuhn’s position
• Is a normal scientist, as Kuhn describes
him, a badly thought or simple minded
scientist? Shouldn’t scientists always be
critical? This is what Karl Popper claims.
Will everything we believe
eventually be falsified?
• It is sometimes taken to imply that all of our
current scientific beliefs will one day be swept
away in a new revolution.
• It is difficult to imagine future scientists rejecting
our belief that the earth goes round the sun.
• They may, however, discover that such beliefs
are approximations to richer and more inclusive
theories the details of which we cannot at
present imagine.
“A new scientific truth does
not win by convincing its
opponents and making
them see the light, but
rather because its
opponents eventually die
and a new generation
grows up that is familiar
with it.” Max Planck
“In questions of science
the authority of a
thousand is not worth
the humble reasoning
of a single individual”
Galileo Galilei.
Paul Karl Feyerabend
(1924 –1994)• Austrian-born philosopher of science.
• Major works:– Against Method (1975)
– Science in a Free Society (1978)
– Farewell to Reason (1987).
• Famous for his anarchistic view of science and his rejection of the existence of universal methodological rules.
• He is an influential figure in the philosophy of science, and also in the sociology of scientific knowledge.
Epistemological anarchism- There are no useful and exception-free
methodological rules governing the progress of
science or the growth of knowledge
• the idea that science can or should operate according to universal and fixed rules is unrealistic, pernicious and detrimental to science itself.
• anarchism reflects methodological pluralism
• scientific method does not have a monopoly on truth or useful results
• dadaistic "anything goes“ attitude