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