What is this thing called science? Ch. 8 (B)

(Originally written November 8, 2006 in Book 8)

What is this thing called science?
Alan Chalmers

Ch. 8 continued...

Every paradigm has its puzzles to solve. When they encounter a problem that is too serious or problems that are too serious, a crisis will occur.

If a crisis is too big to overcome it "may lead to the rejection of a paradigm and its replacement by an incompatible alternative" (Chalmers, 112).

Anomalies will occur all the time in a paradigm. These will only become a crisis if the anomaly strikes at the foundation of a paradigm.

Anomalies can trigger a crisis due to some sociological needs.

Extremely serious anomalies and a mass number of anomalies can trigger a crisis.

When a crisis is undermining the confidence of proponents of any paradigm a revolution will occur.

The situation is exasperated when a rival and incompatible paradigm emerges.

Rival paradigms will be wholly incompatible. They will ask different questions and assert different standards.

Paradigms guide a scientist's worldview.

Rival paradigms are not chosen as better due to logical supremacy; the switch is sort of like a "gestalt switch" or a "religious conversion"

Kuhn compares scientific revolutions to political revolutions.

For many reasons, Kuhn calls rival paradigms "incommensurable".

Scientific revolutions are successful when a majority of scientists in any field switch paradigms, then holdovers to the old paradigm are obsoleted and left to die.

[The function of normal science and revolution]

Kuhn's account of science is very describe but includes a theory of science because he describes the function of science. He claimed that normal science and revolution have necessary functions in science.

Normal science serves the function of giving the opportunity for scientists to develop a theory.

Normal science creates a safe zone for experimentation. If all scientists were critical of the paradigm, no advances would be made.

Revolution is needed for science to advance.

[The merits of Kuhn's account of science]

Kuhn nailed the descriptive element of science.

Kuhn vs. Popper on differentiating science from astrology:
Popper claims astrology is non-science because it is either unfalsifiable or falsified. (Neither of these is an adequate rejection of astrology.) Kuhn's utilization of the paradigm adequately debunks astrology as a science.

[Kuhn's ambivalence on progress through revolution]

Kuhn is notoriously ambiguous.

Kuhn is relativistic in his account of scientific progress.

Kuhn's denial of relativity in the scope of scientific progress disagrees with his other relativistic claims.

Kuhn's sociological emphasis also emphasizes a relativist view point.

[Objective knowledge]

Kuhn claims that a scientific revolution is analogous to a gestalt shift and yet can occur over time.

Chalmers claims that Kuhn is confusing two types of knowledge here, subjective and objective.

The relationship between one paradigm to another is an objective knowledge, but the switch from one to the other by any given scientist is a psychological one, thus a subjective one.