SCIE1000 Philosophy essay on Kuhn\'s view on science PDF

Preview

Summary

Philosophy essay on Kuhn's view on science, paradigm...

Description

Sherry Lim

SCIE1000 Philosophy essay This essay will aim to discuss the Thomas S. Kuhn’s view regarding science. Kuhn’s is a trained physicist at Harvard University and became a historian and a philosopher. He introduced the notion of a ‘paradigm’ where there are periods of ‘normal science’ where people work to develop a certain ‘paradigm’ [CITATION UQS20 \p 153 \n \l 3081 ]. I will also discuss whether or not the Kuhnian and the Popperians have in common about the rationality of science. I believed that Kuhn’s and Popperians will have close to none in common about the rationality of science. To begin I will be talking about Kuhn’s point of view in regard to science. Kuhn’s argued that science does not always evolve gradually towards the truth, that science has a ‘paradigm’. A paradigm is an open-ended scientific achievement with its own methods and explanation, it will remain constant until it goes through a paradigm shift where new theories form when a phenomenon can no longer be explained by the current theory. As mention before, the period of ‘normal science’ is where people work to develop a certain scientific ‘paradigm’ in a more or less Popperian way. It is a stable stage when anomalies are rebutted as scientist often believe that the anomalies can be explained in the future. However, often anomalies began to become serious where the constant effort in attempting to remove them are not achieved. This is when the paradigm shift begins, where multiple new theories will uprise in order to explain for the anomalies that cannot be rid of. When new ‘paradigm’ is established, it will reflect better on the observations and offers a model which is closer than that of the old one. Kuhn also believed that the choice of a paradigm shift was as much of a social process as a logical process, which had him being accused of being a relativist. Induction is a popular view of a scientific method where observations of a natural phenomenon can be turned into a general principle of scientific law. Inductive reasoning is used to justify the scientific law as it is what occurs often not by chance. It can be used to then make predictions on events in which it is not yet observed. Alternatively, it can also be used to provide explanations of events in which we have already observed. A priori justification is when an observation is justified mathematically or logically, where the knowledge is gained from prior knowledge of the subject. An example of a priori knowledge is the knowledge of mathematical principle, where in this sense, mathematics is different to science, science is a posteriori discipline. Posteriori justification can only be justified by completing experiments. [CITATION UQS20 \p 142-143 \n \l 3081 ] Karl Popper thought that ‘induction was unjustifiable’ [CITATION UQS20 \p 145-151 \n \l 3081 ]. His account of science, ‘the hypothetico-deductive method’ is where science is guided by hypotheses and refutations. Popper thought that science could be tested to see if it could withstand being falsify, and if it could, then it could be the ‘best’ available theory. On the other hand, Kuhn’s ‘normal science’ were not subjected to testing. Kuhn thought that the one to best explain the anomalies will be the new ‘paradigm’ and that they will only be question when the anomalies where ‘serious’ enough. This way of thinking however, is not practical in the way of science as one experiment could prove the theory wrong. Many believed that Kuhn and Popper’s way of thinking could potentially be about belief systems as well as scientific methods. Kuhn believed that the ‘paradigm’ is foundational, at least until a crisis arises whereas Popper believed that theories should always tried to be proved otherwise. Falsity of a statement can be rebutted by a singular statement. I also do not believe that falsifications can occur frequently as when anomaly does occur, we do not always reject them at once, often when the theories have proven over and over.

Sherry Lim In conclusion, I do not believe that Kuhn and Popper have anything in common about the rationally of science as they both share very important yet different opinions. Where Kuhn thought that science had period of ‘normal science’ where scientist work to develop a certain scientific ‘paradigm’ and will stay that way until a ‘serious’ anomaly occurs that cannot be rid of which will then cause the shift of the ‘paradigm’. Popper thought that all scientist should focus on attempting to falsify existing theory rather than using widely known concept to explore deeper into unknown regions of science. I believed that while it is important to attempt to falsify theories, it is just as important to explore the unknown regions of science as they are how we evolve our living conditions and treatments. Therefore, Popper’s theory can also be seen to inhibit the pursuit of knowledge. While Popper’s ‘hypothetico-deductive model’ is flawed, Kuhn’s view of how science will only shift ‘paradigm’ when a serious anomaly or a reoccurring unexpected anomaly that the model could no longer explain the theory occurred, is also flawed as anomaly occurs for a reason, they should not be brush under the rug as they are all trying to tell us something. While a hypothesis is falsified, it shouldn’t be disregarded because there could be things we could learned from as mistakes is how we learn in science. I believed that theories should be applied together to ensure that science will be wellfounded and possibly falsifiable.

Bibliography UQ. (2020). SCIE1000 Lecture note 2020....