the structure ofscientific revolution -thomas kuhn

THE STRUCTURE OFSCIENTIFIC REVOLUTION

Presented to :

prof. Yasser Mansourprofessor of architecturefaculty of engineering

ainshams university

PRESENTED BY: Nouran adel elkiki

may 2016

PhD- Arc 703 - Philosophical investigation in architecture

Thomas S . Kuhn (1922- 1996)

• An American physicist, historian, and philosopher of science.

• B S in Theoretical Physics from Harvard University (1934)

• MS and Ph. D in Physics at 1946 and 1949, respectively under the supervision of John Van Vleck

• Three years of freedom (1948 to 51) as Harvard Junior Fellow of society of fellows allowed switch from:

Physics History of Science Philosophy of science

• Affected by James B. Conant,(president of Harvard University)who introduced him to the history of science and thus initiated the

transformation in his conception of the nature of scientific advance.

• Random Explorations

• Studding :Alex andre Koyré ,Emile Meyerson, Hélène Metzger, and Anneliese Maier

Scientific thought were very different from those current today

• Studding :A. O.Lovejoy’s Great Chain of Being Conception of what The History of Scientific Ideas can be.

• Influenced by: Auguste Comte and Gaston Bachelard (Comte's stages and transform from stage to another one)

• Series of 8 public lectures delivered at Lowell Institute in Boston(1951) on “The Quest for Physical Theory.”

• Taught course on History of Science at Harvard University (1956)

• Studding : Centre for Advanced Studies in Behavioral Science (1958- 59)

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."

Introduction

1- The Copernican Revolution: Planetary Astronomy in the Development of Western Thought.Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1957

2-The Structure of Scientific Revolutions. (First Edition)

Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1962.

3-The Structure of Scientific Revolutions. (second Edition)

Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1969

4-The Essential Tension: Selected Studies in Scientific Tradition and Change. Chicago and London: University of Chicago Press, 1977

5-Black-Body Theory and the Quantum Discontinuity, 1894-1912. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1987

6- The Copernican Revolution: Planetary Astronomy in

the Development of Western Thought (revised)Thomas S. Kuhn (Author), James Bryant Conant (Foreword)

Harvard University Press; Revised edition (January 1, 1992)

7-The Structure of Scientific Revolutions

: 50th Anniversary EditionThomas S. Kuhn (Author)

,Ian Hacking (Introduction)

University Of Chicago Press;(April 30, 2012)

Beirut 2007

Kuwait 1992

.

THE STRUCTURE OF SCIENTIFIC REVOLUTION Introduction

• Scientists do not in fact falsify theories in the ‘instant’ way specified by Popper .While at the level of empirical hypotheses

Popperian falsificationism may operate, this cannot be maintained at the level of broader theoretical structures or the

evolution of science as a whole.

• In The Structure of Scientific Revolutions Thomas Kuhn argues that science evolves – not in a logically linear fashion but

through dramatic shifts in how scientists see the world.

• He coins the term “paradigm” and “paradigm shift” like the shift from Newtonian physics to Quantum physics

• Paradigms: Scientific achievements that for a time provide model problems and solutions to a community of

practitioners.

• According to Kuhn scientific progress in science happens through revolutions.

• Each scientific revolution alters the historical perspective of the community that experiences it, then that change of

perspective should affect the structure of post-revolutionary textbooks and research publications.

• A shift in the distribution of the technical literature cited in the footnotes to research report…ect. Each of these

contributed to a Paradigm Shift

• The development of a science is the distinction between the pre- and the post-paradigm periods

THE STRUCTURE OF SCIENTIFIC REVOLUTION outline

Chapter 1

Chapter 2

Chapter 3

Chapter 4

Chapter 5

Chapter 6

Chapter 7

Chapter 8

Chapter 9

Chapter 10

Chapter 11

Chapter 12

Chapter 13

Introduction

The route to normal science

The nature of normal science

Normal science as puzzle solving

The priority of paradigms

Anomaly and the emergence of scientific discoveries

Crisis and the emergence of scientific discoveries

The response to crisis

The nature and necessity of scientific revolutions

Revolutions as changes of world view

The invisibility of revolutions

The resolution of revolutions

Progress through revolutions

No

rma

l scie

nce

Tra

nsitio

nS

cie

ntific

revo

lutio

ns


1-A Role for History

History, if viewed as a repository for more than anecdote or chronology, could produce a decisive Transformation

in the Image of Science.

Science is the constellation of

facts , theories and methods collected

in current texts

Scientists are the men who, successfully or not, have striven to contribute one or another element to

that particular constellation.

Scientific development becomes the piecemeal process by which these items have been added, singly and in combination, to the

ever growing stockpile that constitutes scientific techniques and knowledge

History of science becomes the discipline that chronicles both these

successive increments and the obstacles that have inhibited their

accumulation

If

• Out-of-date theories are not in principle unscientific just because they have been discarded.

• The Historical Research that displays the difficulties in isolating individual inventions and discoveries gives ground for profound

doubts about the cumulative process through which these individual contributions to science were thought to have been compounded.

The result of all these doubts and difficulties is a Historiographical Revolution in the Study of Science.

Historians of science:Its more and more difficult to fulfill the functions that the concept of development by accumulation assigns to them. As

chroniclers of an incremental process, they discover that additional research makes it harder, not easier, to answer questions like:

When was oxygen discovered? Who fist conceived of energy conservation?Simply the wrong sorts of questions to ask. Science doesn't develop by the accumulation of individual discoveries and invention


Paradigm: Greek word for pattern

Normal Science :

The standard paradigm

Anomalies :

Things that cannot be

explained by normal science

Paradigm Shift:

A new paradigm is created to

account for anomalies

1- A Role for History

THE following Terms & Concept book articulated


Chapter 1

Chapter 2

Chapter 3

Chapter 4

Chapter 5

Chapter 6

Chapter 7

Chapter 8

Chapter 9

Chapter 10

Chapter 11

Chapter 12

Chapter 13

Introduction













No

rma

l scie

nce

Tra

nsitio

nS

cie

ntific r

evo

lutio

ns

THE STRUCTURE OF SCIENTIFIC REVOLUTION Part1

Normal Science2-The Route to Normal Science

Means research firmly based upon one or more past scientific achievements, achievements that some particular

scientific community acknowledges for a time as supplying the foundations for its further practice

Normal

Science

These Achievements must be

Unprecedented Open-Ended

Paradigm

BEFORE AFTER

Ptolemaic Astronomy TO Copernican

A r i s t o t e l i a n D y n a m i c s T O N e w t o n i a n

C o r p u s c u l a r O p t i c s T O Wa v e O p t i c s


Normal Science2-The Route to Normal Science

Transformations of paradigm are scientific revolutions, and is the usual developmental pattern of mature science

It begins with a “collection of facts

A “school” or a “movement” encourages collection of

these facts

Continuous development leads to the emergence of

one paradigm

The new paradigm must seem better than its competitors to be

accepted

The new paradigm “implies a new and more rigid definition of the field”. It leads to “the

formation of specialized journals, and the foundation of specialists societies

How are paradigms developed?

Paradigms have furthered the research process by:

Creating an inquisitive processDeveloping alternative

methodologiesDetermining the relevance of

disciplinary functions

Two meanings of Paradigm:• Entire constellation of beliefs, values, techniques, and so on, shared by the members of a given community.

• The concrete puzzle- solution which, employed as models or examples, can replace explicit rules as a basis for the

resolution of the remaining puzzles of normal science


Normal Science3-The nature of normal science

• Paradigms gain their status because they are more successful than their competitors in solving a few problems that the

group of practitioner has come to recognize as acute This follows a lot of mopping-up work, which is carrier out by

successive scientists of that normal- science, once the paradigm assumes shape

• Normal science has a drastically restricted vision, which is essential for the development of science. The paradigm forces

scientists to investigate some part of the nature in a detail and depth that would otherwise be unimaginable

Three normal foci for factual scientific investigation directed by normal or paradigm-driven science :

Determination of scientific facts:Attempt to increase accuracy and scope of class offacts that the paradigm has shown to be particularlyrevealing of the nature of things

Matching facts with theory:Facts/ observations from nature that can be

compared directly with the prediction of the paradigm

Articulation of theory:Articulation of paradigm theory by exhausting the

fact gathering activity of the normal science

Experiments and

observations

Effort to bring theory and

nature into closer agreement

Determination of

quantitative laws


Normal Science3-The nature of normal science

1. Articulation of theories the paradigm already supplies

2. Attempt to force nature into the inflexible boxes

3. No effort to discover anomalies (Ignored or unnoticed)

4. No effort to invent new theory (and no tolerance for those who try

The problems with normal science

These problems of normal science “exhaust the literature of normal science, both empirical and theoretical”

1. It must be characterized “by more than an acceptable solution”

2.There must be predefined rules that “limit both the nature of acceptable solutions and the steps by which they are

to be obtained”

3.There must be a “strong network of commitments – conceptual, theoretical, instrumental, and methodological”.


Normal Science4-Normal science as puzzle solving

• Normal science aim little to product major novelties, conceptual or

phenomenal.

• Outcome that doesn’t fall in the narrow range is usually just a research

failure, one which reflects not on nature but on the scientist

• Scientist become expert puzzle solvers and the challenge of the puzzle

is an important part of what usually drives him on.

How do you relate puzzle classification to a

research question?

you can’t just make any composition with puzzle

pieces, there must exist some rules of how the

outcome would be.

Doing research is essentially like solving a puzzle.

Puzzles have rules. Puzzles generally have predetermined solutions.


Normal Science5-The priority of paradigms

A paradigm may serve many scientific groups, BUT it is not the same paradigm for them all.

• Paradigms of a mature science community can be determined with relative ease, but not rules

• Lack of a standard interpretation or of an agreed reduction to rules will not prevent a paradigm from guiding

research

“Rules derive from paradigms, but paradigms can guide research even in the absence of rules"

• Subspecialties are differently educated and focus on different applications for their research findings.

• A paradigm can determine several traditions of normal science that overlap without being coextensive.

• Consequently, changes in a paradigm affect different subspecialties differently—"A revolution produced within one

of these traditions will not necessarily extend to the others as well"

• Relative difficulty in discovering the rules

• Scientists always learn new theories along with application, not in abstraction

• For as long as the problem- solution is accepted by the community, no rule is asked for

• Substituting rules with paradigms make diversity of field understandable

Rules came later than paradigms because:


Chapter 1

Chapter 2

Chapter 3

Chapter 4

Chapter 5

Chapter 6

Chapter 7

Chapter 8

Chapter 9

Chapter 10

Chapter 11

Chapter 12

Chapter 13

Introduction













No

rma

l scie

nce

Tra

nsitio

nS

cie

ntific r

evo

lutio

ns


Transition6-Anomaly and the emergence of scientific discoveries

If normal science is so rigid and if scientific communities are so close-knit, how can a paradigm change take place? This

chapter traces paradigm changes that result from discovery brought about by encounters with anomaly

How does paradigm change come about? (paradigm Shift)

Discovery — novelty of fact

Discovery begins with the awareness of anomaly

Perceiving an anomaly is essential for perceiving novelty

The area of the anomaly is then explored

Invention—novelty of theory.

Not all theories are paradigm theories

Unanticipated outcomes derived from theoretical studies can lead to the perception of an anomaly and the awareness of novelty.

Why normal science is very effective in causing anomalies (Though it is not directed to novelties) ?


Transition7-Crisis and the emergence of scientific discoveries

Paradigm changes that result from the invention of new theories brought about by the failure of existing theory to solve the

problems defined by that theory. This failure is acknowledged as a crisis by the scientific community

As is the case with discovery, a change in an existing theory that results in the invention of a new theory is also brought about

by the awareness of anomaly.

A.The emergence of a new theory is generated by the persistent failure of the puzzles of normal science to be solved as they

should. Failure of existing rules is the prelude to a search for new ones (68). These failures can be brought about by

1. observed discrepancies between theory and fact—this is the "core of the crisis" .

2. changes in social/cultural climates (knowledge/beliefs are socially constructed?)

Examples of

revolutions:

Copernican astronomy,

Newtonian physics and

Darwinian biology


Transition8-The response to crisis

In this critical chapter, Kuhn discusses how scientists respond to the anomaly in fit between theory and nature so that a

transition to crisis and to extraordinary science begins, and he foreshadows how the process of paradigm change happen.

Paradigm is declared invalid ONLY if an alternate candidate is available

The transition to a new paradigm is Scientific Revolution

This is the transition from normal to Extraordinary Research

Crisis which begin with blurring of a paradigm and the consequent loosening of the rules of normal research.

They end with: Normal science ultimately proves to be able to handle the crisis provoking problem

Problem persists and scientists declare the problem unsolvable, and set for future time

Lead to emergence of a new candidate for a paradigm and battle over its acceptance

All crises close in one of three ways:

Normal science able to handle the crisis-provoking problem

The crisis ends with a new candidate for paradigm

The problem resists. Problem set aside for future generations

Almost always the men who

achieve fundamental inventions of

a new paradigm have been either

very young or very new to the field

whose paradigm they change


Chapter 1

Chapter 2

Chapter 3

Chapter 4

Chapter 5

Chapter 6

Chapter 7

Chapter 8

Chapter 9

Chapter 10

Chapter 11

Chapter 12

Chapter 13

Introduction













No

rma

l scie

nce

Tra

nsitio

nS

cie

ntific r

evo

lutio

ns


Scientific revolution9-The nature and necessity of scientific revolutions

Why should a paradigm change be called a revolution? What are the functions of scientific revolutions in the development of science?

1848 lithography of a German uprising

A scientific revolution that results in paradigm change is analogous

to a political revolution

Normal research is cumulative, but scientific revolution is non-cumulative

Rejection of a paradigm requires the rejection of its assumptions and its rules (Incompatibility)z


Scientific revolution10-Revolutions as changes of world view

What is this?

What else is this?

What had to happen to shift your perspective?

“I see a bird.” “I see a rabbit!”

During scientific revolutions, we see new things when looking with instruments in places we looked before

How do paradigms change the world? Do scientific

revolutions assist in the evolution of human thought? 1. The view of scientists does change during periods of scientary

revolution.

2. This change in perception is known as a “Gestalt Shift”

A gestalt shift requires personal recognizance, and may

require acceptance of an earlier perception

A gestalt switch: "I used to see a planet, but now I see a satellite."

(This leaves open the possibility that the earlier perception was once

and may still be correct).

A paradigm shift: " I used to see a planet, but I was wrong."


Scientific revolution11- The invisibility of revolutions

Because paradigm shifts are generally viewed not as revolutions but as additions to scientific knowledge, and because the

history of the field is represented in the new textbooks that accompany a new paradigm, a scientific revolution seems invisible

These

misconstructions

render revolutions

Invisible


Scientific revolution12-The resolution of revolutions

Paradigm displaces another after a period of paradigm-testing that occurs

only after persistent failure to solve a noteworthy puzzle has given rise to crisis.

competition between two rival paradigms for the allegiance of the scientific community

Transitions between paradigms can’t be made a step a time, but rather it’s a switch. It may

occur at once or not at all

No theory ever solves all the puzzles at onceIf every failure justifies theory rejection, all

theories must be rejected at all times

The process of paradigm-testing parallels two popular philosophical theories

about the verification of scientific theories

Theory-testing through probabilistic verification

All theories have agreed with the facts, but only more or less

Better sense to ask which of two competing theories fits the facts BETTER

Theory-testing through falsification (Karl Popper)


Scientific revolution13-Progress through revolutions

The net result of a sequence of revolutionary selections, separated by periods of normal

research, is the wonderfully adapted set of instruments we call Modern Scientific knowledge

The term science is reserved for fields that Do progress in obvious ways.

Does a field make progress because it is a science, or is it a science because it makes progress?

Progress is an inherent function within the field of science

“Normal science progresses because the enterprise shares certain salient characteristics”

In other words progress can be seen from a multitude of perspectives:

1. Progress is subjective

2. This can be viewed from a social and a natural perspective. Which method is more conducive for effective problem

solving? What are the differences in these fields?

- Social scientists believe in the use of “original sources”, the proper evaluation of alternative solutions, and

the “selection of competing paradigms”

- Natural scientists believe in the effectiveness of textbooks, and they “are systematically substituted for the

creative scientific literature that made them possible”

THE STRUCTURE OF SCIENTIFIC REVOLUTION summary

THANK YOU

THE STRUCTURE OF SCIENTIFIC REVOLUTION Discussion