The Structure of Scientific Revolutions
Kuhn, T. S., & Hacking, I. (2012). The structure of Scientific Revolutions. University of Chicago Press.
Preface
Historical Context of Kuhn's work
Both Kuhn and Popper are physicists by training. However, around 1962, the public perception of the forefront of science slowly shifted from physics to biotech, and it later switched to CS.
Kuhn took physical science and tried to establish a model to apply to other sciences.
Pre-1965, physics as a field contains two major competing paradigms: steady state and the Big Bang. But post-1965, after the discovery of background radiation, the Big Bang became the dominant theory. So now the field has a more normal science flavor.
Book Structure: Normal science with a paradigm and a dedication to solving puzzles, followed by serious anomalies, which led to a crisis, and finally, the resolution of the crisis by a new paradigm.
Normal Science and Puzzle- Solving(2-4):
Kuhn's view: Normal science research doesn't aim to produce major novelties, conceptual or phenomenal. It can be categorized into three types:
Determination of significant fact: Theory only qualitatively informs us. Measurement and other procedures determine the fact more precisely.
Matching of facts with theory: A known observation doesn't tally with the theory. Tidy up the theory or show an old fact is wrong / lacks something.
Articulation of the theory: Based on the theory, what can it imply (usually through mathematical formula)
Kuhn's view is heavily based on valuing theoretical work at the highest value.
Since then, society has independently valued theoretical, experimental, and instrumental works.
Despite the name, Kuhn values normal science and thinks it is critical.
Paradigm (5):
The meaning of paradigm has switched so much. But Kuhn himself had two versions: local (exemplar) and global (idea of a scientific community).
Kuhn considers a paradigm as an achievement that is 1) sufficiently unprecedented to attract an enduring group of adherents and 2) open-ended, with plenty of problems to be solved.
Paradigms set the standard and approach for normal science.
Kuhn later walked back on pre-paradigm and claimed that paradigm always exists.
Anomaly (6):
It generally takes a long time for the anomaly to kick in.
Crisis (7-8):
The crisis only brings change when there is a more suited paradigm
Revolution (9) and Changes of World View:
Revolution fundamentally changes the way we see the world.
Post Revolution
Science is not a straight line to the truth.
When a revolution happens, some of the old topics might be abandoned, and new topics get picked up.
Incommensurability
This is one of the important ideas stem from Kuhn. It says that the new paradigm and the old paradigm simply are not comparable.
Kuhn is still a rationalist, not a relativist. He still thinks that theories should be accurate in their predictions, consistent, broad in scope, present phenomena in an orderly and coherent way, and fruitful in suggesting new phenomena or relationships.
Chapter 1: Introduction: A Role for History
Change in the perspective of science history
Historians are finding it harder to 1) research into the accumulation view of the scientific development history and 2) distinguish the scientific component and mistake component of past theories.
The new focus for historians is to display the historical integrity of that science in its own time
Methodology alone is not sufficient to generate a unique substantive conclusion to scientific questions. Background matters
Brief overall of the proposed scientific process
Scientists do normal science under shared assumptions/standards. When normal science fails to address puzzles, a revolution happens, and new theory forms as a slow process to challenge existing theories.
It takes time for new facts and theories to be integrated into existing systems.
New theory shifts the problem we focus on, the standard for legitimate solutions, and how we see the world.
Chapter 2: The Route to Normal Science
Definition of normal science
Research firmly based upon one or more past scientific achievements, achievements that some particular scientific community acknowledges for a time as supplying the foundation for its further practice.
Two criteria for paradigm/achievement
Sufficiently unprecedented to attract an enduring group of adherents away from competing modes of scientific activity.
Sufficiently open-ended to leave all sorts of problems for the redefined group of practitioners to resolve.
Pre-paradigm:
No single dominating paradigm
All facts that could pertain to the development seem equally relevant. So early fact-gathering consists of causal observations, experiments, and data from other established crafts. Seems chaotic. Often multiple scientists will attempt to interpret similar but not exactly the same phenomenon from different perspectives.
Post-paradigm:
Consecutive scientific revolutions transit one paradigm to another
The existence of a set of principles that scientists no longer need to explain or justify when continuing their research
With each paradigm, the definition of the field becomes more rigid and clear
Research reports are starting to become impossible for laymen to access
Chapter 3: The Nature of Normal Science
A paradigm is successful because it promise more discoverable success. People generally choose to work on this mopping up operation until is is more efficient to think of alternatives.
Three categories of scientific investigations
Work on facts the paradigm has shown to be important, increasing its precision or larger context.
Work on facts that can be compared directly with predictions from the paradigm theory.
Work on articulating the paradigm theory
Determination of constant
Determination of quantitative laws
Further articulate paradigm through exploring better application to the real world, reconciling observation and theory, and reformulation.
Chapter 4: Normal Science as Puzzle-solving
Normal science rarely aims to produce major innovations. People love it because it further improves the paradigm, and the process is like solving a puzzle. This puzzle-solving process creates a different motivation for people to finish their research/study.
Some properties of normal science and puzzle
The result is determined and may be of no value, but the process is fun
There is a set of rules governing how to obtain the result, standards for accepted solutions, and commitment to a set of instruments/how to use them.
Chapter 5: The Priority of Paradigms
This chapter separates paradigms from full set of rules. Kuhn argues that
Paradigm determine normal science without discoverable full set of rules
people relate to paradigm by resemblance, and this process is obtained because education is never in a vacuum
Because explicit rules do not exist, the field of a particular science often has little coherence
Chapter 6: Anomaly and the Emergence of Scientific Discoveries
Discovery of anomaly fact (observational) and new theory (conceptual) takes time to completely integrate (it's a process). The process of normal science, through continuously advancing precise measurement and expectation, actually give ground to the possibility to discover anomalies. Those anomalies after extended, but not necessarily prolonged assimilation, will lead to new theory and paradigm.
Chapter 7: Crisis and the Emergence of Scientific Theories
New theory emerges when a paradigm suffers from consistent failure in puzzle solving activities (the crisis).
Chapter 8: The Response to Crisis
Not all questions can lead to paradigm change. Once questions and anomalies became large enough, the end is one of the three options: paradigm wins, declare no solution, and new theory emerge. In crisis, scientist will start to loosen paradigm by introduce variations, and also try to make the anomaly more defined and pronounced.
Note nothing in this process is guaranteed accumulative.
Chapter 9: The Nature and Necessity of Scientific Revolutions
The parallel between political revolution and scientific revolution
Existing paradigm cease to function adequately (crisis)
Only visible for practitioner
The choose between paradigm must go beyond scientific arguments
New paradigm does not have to be in directly conflict with predecessors, but cumulation is improbable.
Argues against the somewhat Positivism way of thinking that theory only applies to already tested facts.
Overall talks about the scientific revolution as a concept.
Chapter 10: Revolutions as Change of World View
Argues for scientific revolution leads to change in perception of the world, much more than mere interpretation.
Chapter 11: The Invisibility of Revolutions
Argues for the invisibility of scientific revolution. Textbooks are constructed post revolution about an new paradigm, so easier to be seen and written as the cumulative history.
Chapter 12: The Resolution of Revolution
Scientist often not switch paradigm, or switching due to persuasion(such as aesthetic) instead of proof
Chapter 13: Progress through Revolution
New paradigms are often not comparable to old ones. We cannot assume the that revolution brings progress. The sense of progress is generally fake.
Last updated