Outline 16 - Kuhn and Revolutions

Phil 8: Introduction to Philosophy of Science
Outline 16: Kuhn and Revolutions
I. Review
A. Kuhn is trying to show that there’s always an arbitrary element that goes into
determining the scientific beliefs of a community at a time.
B. Pre-Paradigmatic Science
i. Scientific activity, but to be distinguished from normal

science.
ii. Characterized by lack of general agreement.
iii. Characterized by lack of professionalization.
C. Paradigm
i. Scientific achievement that scientific community takes, for
some period of time, to supply the foundation of its practice.
ii. Examples: Ptolemaic Astronomy, Copernican Astronomy,
Newtonian Dynamics, Wave Optics
iii. Marked by two essential features: (1) Makes a sufficiently
unprecedented achievement that attracts followers away from
rival conception of topic and (2) Is sufficiently open-ended to
leave plenty of problems for practitioners to work on.
D. Normal Science
i. Normal science can’t proceed without a paradigm.

ii. Characterized as “mop-up work” done after shift to
paradigm.
iii. Involves three kinds of activities: (1) Gathering facts the
paradigm has deemed relevant (2) Matching facts with theory
and (3) Articulating the theory.
iv. Characterized as puzzle solving activity.
v. Is highly cumulative
II. Crisis
A. During the course of normal science, various anomalies occur. An

“anomaly” is a violation of a paradigm-induced expectation.
A. Sometimes, anomalies lead to a crisis: a pronounced breakdown/failure of

the normal problem solving activities.
B. For anomalies to lead to crisis, the anomalies have to exist unsolved for a long
time- otherwise they’re just treated as puzzles that haven’t been solved yet.
C. Often, the theory that will replace the paradigm has been anticipated long
before the crisis, but was not taken seriously because there was no crisis. A
crisis is a necessary precondition for a novel theory to emerge.
D. Often, during the crisis, science starts to resemble the pre-paradigmatic stage
in that there are lots of different incompatible versions of the paradigm held
by different researchers.
III. Response to crisis
A. Our earlier study into the scientific method considered theories in

isolation. A very naïve idea was that theories are rejected when their
observational consequences are false. We’ve now seen that’s wrong for
many reasons.
B. Kuhn argues that it’s incorrect to think of theories as being accepted or

rejected in isolation. In response to even prolonged crisis, scientists never
reject a paradigm until they have another to replace it with. “To reject
one paradigm without simultaneously accepting another is to reject
science.”
C. The only difference between normal counter-instances during the puzzle

solving activity of normal science and the counter-instances that create
crisis are considerations that seem merely pragmatic: e.g. length of time
the anomaly has persisted, availability of rival paradigm, etc.
D. Two different scientists can reasonably disagree about whether the same
anomaly is a normal puzzle to be solved or the start of a crisis.
E. During a crisis, scientists engage in “extraordinary science”, which is

what we typically think of as normal science. It is marked by
i. A blurring of the paradigm that allows for more

theoretical ideas to be developed/tried out.
ii. The particular anomalies that generated the crisis are
investigated more intensely (and so often new
discoveries are made.)
iii. There are more debates about the fundamentals of
the theory.
F. Extraordinary science concludes when one of three things happen:

i. The puzzle is solved within the old paradigm.
ii. The puzzle remains unsolved with the current
paradigm but shelved and put away, to be taken up
again later when new advancements are on offer.
iii. A new paradigm resolves the anomaly/anomalies that
generated the crisis, and that new paradigm becomes
the standard.
IV. Case Study: The Non-Detection of Gravitational Radiation
 In 1969, Weber reports evidence of large amounts of gravitational radiation, using a

new type of detector that he designed.
 The predominant paradigm, at the time predicts that there is indeed gravitational
radiation that is detectable on Earth. Relativity predicts that the movement of
massive bodies produces gravity waves. Exploding supernovae, black holes, and
other violent events should produce gravitational radiation detectable on Earth, but
the waves are extremely weak and difficult to detect.
 The amount of radiation Weber reports far exceeds the theoretical predictions of
astronomers and cosmologists.
 A Weber-bar antenna consists of a heavy bar, a way to measure its vibrations, a way
to amplify the signal from those vibrations, and a way to record the results. The bar
must be insulated from all other potential disturbances, which Weber attempts to do
by suspending the bar in a metal vacuum chamber on wire.
o Even perfectly isolated bars will experience vibrations that are not due to
gravitational radiation; random movements in the bar’s atoms will cause
vibrations so long as the bar is above absolute zero. So, one must decide
how to sort random vibrations from gravitational radiation.
 Because his results contradicted the current paradigm, Weber worked to make his
results more persuasive.
o He showed that above-threshold peaks could be detected simulatenously on
two or more detectors separated by a thousand miles.
o He showed that peak activity of his detector happened every 24 hours.
o He showed that the peak activity was related to the detector’s orientation to
the stars rather than the sun.
 Scientists disagreed about the important of his experiments:
o “I couldn’t care less about the delay line experiment. You could invent other
mechanisms which would cause the coincidences to go away… The sidereal correlation
to me is the only thing of that whole bunch of stuff that makes me stand up and worry
about it… If that sidereal correlation disappears you can take that whole… experiment
and stuff it some place.”
o “The thing that finally convinced a lot of us… was when he reported that a computer had
analysed his data and found the same thing. The most convincing thing is that he has put
it in a computer.”
o “You know he’s claimed to have people write computer programmes for him “hands
off”. I don’t know what that means… One thing that me and a lot of people are unhappy
about, is the way he’s analysed the data, and the fact that he’s done it in a computer
doesn’t make that much difference.”
 Weber’s results were significant enough for other labs to begin attempt replication
experiments. Several laboratories conduct experiments and get negative results. But
what do the negative results mean? Are the experiments good? That depends on
whether there are large amounts of gravitational radiation. Are there large amounts
of gravitational radiation? That depends on which experiments are good.
 By 1975, Weber’s anomalous results were widely rejected, but there was no
agreement about what had gone wrong. Weber responded to each criticism. The
most influential was Richard Garwin’s, but not because of the experiment Garwin
performed:
o “as far as the scientific community in general is concerned, it’s probably Garwin’s
publication that generally clinched the attitude. But in fact the experiment they did was
trivial—it was a tiny thing… But the thing was, the way they wrote it up.. Everybody else
was awfully tentative about it.. It was all a bit hesitant.. And then Garwin comes along
with this toy. But it’s the way he writes it up you see.” Commented [LT1]: Other people argue against a negative
result (because of all the different camps)
 Here we have an example of an anomaly that may have even bordered on crisis, but
which was resolved within the old paradigm. The forces that led to its resolution
were partly experimental, partly theoretical, but partly based on more pragmatic
social and political factors.
V. Scientific Revolutions
 Scientific Revolution: A non-cumulative event in which the old paradigm is

replaced (entirely or partially) with a new paradigm.
VI. Incommensurability
 According to Kuhn, rival scientific paradigms are incommensurable: there is no
common measure with which to compare rival paradigms.
 From within the perspective of a particular paradigm, rival paradigms seem to
be inferior. But there is no objective standpoint from which we can compare
one paradigm to another.
 Paradigms are incommensurable for two reasons:
o The scientific languages of rival paradigms are different.
o The standards of evidence and argument are different across rival
paradigms.
 Because paradigms are incommensurable, logic and observation alone do not
determine which paradigm is better, or which paradigm a researcher should
choose.
 Normal science (in which logic and experimentation play a crucial role)
cannot choose between paradigms since normal science is only possible
within a particular paradigm.
VII. Resolution of revolutions

o If paradigms are incommensurable, how are revolutions ever resolved?
o Followers are “converted” to new paradigms through some of the following
ways:
oThe new paradigm solves the crisis problem.
oThe new paradigm brings with it an increased precision.
oThe new paradigm makes novel predictions that are confirmed.
oThe new paradigm is better aesthetically- it is simpler or neater.
oResearchers have faith that the new paradigm has a great problem
solving capacity.
o Those who aren’t converted simply aren’t listened to anymore, or taught in
schools. Eventually their influence dies out.
VIII. Relativism
o Relativism is characterized in many different ways. Here’s a first pass that
we’ll use for now. According to relativism, scientific claims are justified only
relative to a paradigm.
o Relativism is not the claim that people merely disagree about some subject
matter.
o Instead, relativism about science is the view that there is no perspective
independent fact of the matter about whether scientific claims are justified.
Objective chance
Paradigm:
BROAD
-scientists generally agree
-organized way of looking at the subject matter of science
NARROW
More advisement that captures attention
Open ended
Still problems to solve
Paradigm gives confidence that all problems are solvable within the paradigm
Work in Norkam Science

“mop up work”
-Gather data that paradigm says is significant
-articulate theory
-fit data to theory
Crisis in revolution:
Crisis arises when anomalies cause researchers to question
Anomalies have to be persistant

Outline 16 - Kuhn and Revolutions

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Outline 16 - Kuhn and Revolutions

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Phil 8: Introduction to Philosophy of Science

Outline 16: Kuhn and Revolutions

i. Scientific activity, but to be distinguished from normal

i. Normal science can’t proceed without a paradigm.

A. During the course of normal science, various anomalies occur. An

A. Sometimes, anomalies lead to a crisis: a pronounced breakdown/failure of

III. Response to crisis

A. Our earlier study into the scientific method considered theories in

B. Kuhn argues that it’s incorrect to think of theories as being accepted or

C. The only difference between normal counter-instances during the puzzle

E. During a crisis, scientists engage in “extraordinary science”, which is

i. A blurring of the paradigm that allows for more

F. Extraordinary science concludes when one of three things happen:

IV. Case Study: The Non-Detection of Gravitational Radiation

 In 1969, Weber reports evidence of large amounts of gravitational radiation, using a

 Scientific Revolution: A non-cumulative event in which the old paradigm is

VII. Resolution of revolutions

Work in Norkam Science

You might also like