RI Science Lecture 3 (Evolutions, Revolutions and Paradigms) 2023

SCIENCELecture 3: Evolutions, Revolutions and Paradigms

Overview◦Kuhnian Paradigmmatism

Recall◦Failure of Verificationismand Falsificationismin resolving the Problem of Demarcation (what is/should be Science?)◦Verificationism: 1) Problem of Induction, 2) Verification criterion is itself unverifiable, 3) Experimentation not always possible, 4) Underdetermination and Theory-ladennessshow that Science isn’t objective◦Falsificationism: 1) Doesn’t fit the history of science, 2) Holist Underdetermination, 3) Falsificationismdoesn’t succeed in dissolving the P.O.I.

Scientific Revolutions and Normal ScienceNormal Science“Puzzle Solving” Build up of anomaliesMany puzzles that can’t be solved CrisisMany different accounts, and conjectured new paradigms New paradigm asserts itself

Kuhnian Paradigmmatism◦Founder: Thomas Kuhn◦Against Popper: criticized Popper for characterizing “the entire scientific enterprise in terms that apply only to its occasional revolutionary parts” (Kuhn 1974, 802)◦Popper’s focus on falsifications of theories led to a concentration on the rather rare instances when a whole theory is at stake◦Kuhn: the way in which science works on such occasions cannot be used to characterize the entire scientific enterprise◦Instead it is in “normal science”, the science that takes place between the unusual moments of scientific revolutions, that we find the characteristics by which science can be distinguished from other activities (Kuhn 1974, 801)

History of Science as key◦Unlike most philosophers of science, including Popper, Kuhn rejects the distinction between the context of discovery and the context of justification ◦Discovery as the historical, psychological process and justification as the means by which the scientist justifies his theory once it is there (Article E, 1-2)◦For Kuhn, the history of science is important if we wish to arrive at an accurate picture of how science progresses◦The mistake of the logical positivists and Popper is to disregard this history, i.e. the context of discovery◦Rather, Kuhn argues that if the history of science is examined, it becomes clear that science does not progress via conjectures and refutations as Popper held, but by paradigms and paradigm shifts◦For Kuhn, the paradigm-exemplar functions as both discovery and justification –it tells scientists how to generate solutions for the puzzles as training with the exemplar helps them to see potential solutions to new puzzles; it also tells scientists which solutions should be accepted into the paradigm on the basis of how similar the new solution is to the paradigm-exemplar

Normal Science and Puzzle-Solving◦In these periods of normal science, the scientific community holds to a certain paradigm◦Paradigm: 1) a set of fundamental theoretical assumptions that are accepted by the scientific community at a given time AND 2) the accompanying exemplars (those problems that have been solved by the existing theories) AND 3) gaps but with clues as to where to find the answers◦In short, a paradigm is an entire scientific outlook –a constellation of shared assumptions, beliefs, and values that unite a scientific community and allow normal science to take place (more later)◦What happens during normal science? Puzzle solving (as opposed to testing fundamental theories, i.e. the paradigm, which are unquestioningly accepted)◦The goal is to eliminate instances/puzzles where observations don’t fit the paradigm while making as few changes as possible◦E.g. the puzzle solving of Uranus’ orbit to discover Neptune (as opposed to questioning Newtonian mechanics)◦If any results conflict with the paradigm, they normally assume that their technique is faulty or some experimental error has occurred, and not take it as a sign of falsification of the paradigm◦There is cumulative growth here as scientists generate more and more puzzle-solutions(this fits the traditional view of Science)◦Paradigms lasts for decades or even centuries

Example of Paradigm◦Mendelev’s periodic table. ◦He arranged the elements in groups according to weights and properties, leaving gaps where he expected an element and predicting its properties. ◦When Gallium, Germanium and Strontium were discovered, they had the weights and the properties he predicted. ◦The periodic table told scientists where to look and how to recognize and classify what they found. ◦Here is a real-world example of a paradigm guiding research.

Scientific Revolutions & Paradigm Shifts◦Over time, more and more anomalies occur, eventually reaching a point of crisiswhen scientists begin to question the paradigm and offer alternative theories◦The revolutionbegins and typically lasts for a generation until a new paradigm is in place (wait for the older ones to die…)◦Though not all pre-existing puzzles from the previous paradigm are necessarily solved under the new paradigm –Kuhn-loss◦E.g.: when taking on the Newtonian paradigm, lost the Cartesian explanation for why all planets revolve around the sun in the same direction; Newtonians didn’t care as they considered it to be a question about the origin of the solar system. ◦E.g.: when moving towards the oxygen paradigm away from the phlogiston paradigm, lost the ability to ask and answer why metals were so much alike; Lavoisier’s chemical theory inhibited chemists from asking this question◦Nonetheless, according to Kuhn, there is an increase in puzzle-solving power◦E.g. geocentric-heliocentric, Aristotelian-Newtonian-Einsteinian

Conversion Experience◦A new paradigm takes hold when a conversion experience between scientists occur.◦While there might be good reasons for scientists to switch allegiance from the old to the new paradigm, Kuhn argues that it nonetheless involves a certain act of faith which cannot be forced.◦Kuhn does briefly mention that extra-scientific factors might help decide the outcome of a scientific revolution—the nationalities and personalities of leading protagonists, for example (1962/1970a, 152–3)◦Implications: science is not a rational objective activity but an irrational one.