Week 2: Paradigms, revolutions, and research programs Flashcards
Kuhn’s philosophy: Paradigm
paradigm - a whole way of doing science, in some particular field. Package of claims about the world, methods for gathering and analysing data, and habits of scientific thought and action
Kuhn’s philosophy: Normal science
normal science - doesn’t question status quo, does not aim to produce real novelty
Kuhn’s philosophy: Disciplinary matrix
disciplinary matrix - “paradigm” in a broad sense: what the members of a scientific community, and they alone, share. all the shared commitments that bind scientists into a distinct community.
the pieces that make up a paradigm? incl. exemplars, metaphysical beliefs, values
exemplars - community’s shared set of standard achievements or concrete problem solutions. specific cases
Kuhn’s philosophy: Anomaly and scientific crisis
anomaly - a- (abscess of) & -nomos (law), failure to solve a puzzle in practice of science
scientific crises - when a series of anomalies start to appear - scientists start to philosophize (they stop solving puzzles and start reflecting on the paradigm itself).
Here new ideas and methods may arrive. Kuhn argues that they are good for science.
Kuhn’s philosophy: Revolution
revolution - the big changes in how scientists see the world, occur when one paradigm replaces another
Kuhn’s philosophy: Incommensurability
incommensurability - not comparable using a common standard (incomparability)
How do these concepts: Paradigm,, Normal science, Disciplinary matrix, Anomaly and scientific crisis, Revolution, and Incommensurability play a role in Kuhn’s view of scientific development?
First there’s a paradigm –> We have normal science –> We have a disciplinary matrix –> Then we start to have anomalies –> once they pile up we have a crisis –> this leads to an revolution –> and finally we have a new paradigm.
Three levels of scientific practice
the three levels;
1) individual scientist/hypothesis
2)communities of scientists and their social network
3) embedding of scientific community within larger society
Which of the three levels of scientific practice (Godfrey-Smith p. 112) was Kuhn primarily interested in? Which level did Popper focus on? How is this reflected in their accounts of scientific change?
much of the subtlety and interest in kuhn’s view is about level 2 relationships
popper more interested in the individual
kuhn: few anomalies don’t matter, once they build up, science has to change; makes sense he’s primarily interested in level 2. popper: one failure and the theory is out the window; makes sense he’d be interested in level 1.
Is it a consequence of Kuhn’s paradigm theory that scientific progress over longer historical periods is impossible?
in a strict reading, kuhn says we cannot measure progress outside of a paradigm
no progress between paradigms
So therefore there can’t be a longer period of scientific progress, as it instead will just be a shift from one paradigm to another.
Normative view of science
How science should be/ What scientist should do to be a “good scientist”
Descriptive view of science
How science is. General picture
Is it Kuhn’s intention to describe science as it is, or as it should be (is Kuhn descriptive or normative)?
Kuhn’s intention seems to be more describing science, but at some points he uses a more normative perspective; we should appreciate revolutions
popper very normative
. How can Kuhn’s conceptual framework be used to describe challenges for interdisciplinary integration? Can you give examples of this? (From Green & Andersen or own examples)
other disciplines have other toolboxes
problems/challenges: different standards for good science/experiments e.g. reproducability, different models (complexity vs system, how detailed they like to be), elements of different disciplinary matrices that don’t overlap
Describe Lakatos’ views on research programs and key concepts in his philosophy (‘hard core’, ‘protective belt’, ‘positive heuristic’, ‘negative heuristic’, etc.)
good science: already recognises good science
hard core: main postulate
heuristics are just guidelines
positive heuristics: protect (support) hard core
negative heuristics: undermine scientific research programme i.e. hard core
protective belt: built up of multiple heuristics to strengthen hard core
Explain what the main differences are between Popper’s and Kuhn’s standards for ‘good’ science, according to Havstad and Smith (2019, p. 840).
popper: criterion of falsifiability
- structured model: conjectures and refutations
- revision of objective to avoid ad hoc hypothesis
kuhn: operate under a paradigm
- holding on to underlying theory despite anomalies
- recognised that anomalies occur regularly in scientific research
According to Havstad and Smith, how can one use Lakatos’ philosophy to understand the development of theories about the evolution of birds? (Please explain the article’s Figures 1 and 3)
Sicentific research program: Birds are dinosaurs movement (BADM)
hard core: birds are dinosaurs, more specifically maniraptoran theropods
positive heuristics: feathers are found in both birds and dinosaurs
negative heuristics: no furcula) fused claws not found
BAND
core: birds not dinosaurs
positive: similarities between birds and sphenouchus
negative: simuliarities between birds and deino something
new knowledge can emerge
e.g. discovery of dinosaurs w clavicles
static and degenerative research program
when BADM progresses, it is difficult to come with counter arguments from BAND
What criticisms have been made against Lakatos’ theory? What do you think about his account?
static theories
can be mistaken for degenerative
stagnant periods and then progressive after a period
lakatos view on good science
can’t distinguish science from pseudo science, only degenerative from progressive
It has been debated whether Darwin’s theory of natural selection is a (falsifiable) scientific theory in Popper’s sense, or whether it rather constitutes a theoretical basic element in the paradigm of our time (a la Kuhn) that we cannot practice biology without. The evolutionary biologist J.B.S. Haldane (1892-1964) believed that if a “Precambrian rabbit” were found, he would be willing to give up the theory of evolution. What do you think the reaction would be to such a finding? And can concepts from Popper, Kuhn, and Lakatos be used to illuminate this?
to popper, strictly, darwin’s theory is not falsifiable, the fittest will always survive. not a theory, a basic principle.
in kuhns philosophy it is an anomaly which could lead to a crisis/revolution
for lakatos, it would make a big dent in the hard core
evolution could so easily be disproved if just a single fossil turned up in the wrong date order. evolution has passed the test with flying colours. (richard dawkins, 2009)
Kuhn (1922-96)
Published The Structure of Scientific Revolutions.
“Actual scientists are now, increasingly reading Kuhn instead of Popper”
Normal science and puzzle-solving
Normal, everyday science doesn’t question the status quo and does not aim to produce real novelty.
Puzzle-solving is about applying known theories, tools and methods in new contexts in which we expect them to work.
Exemplar: ‘paradigm’ in the narrow sense
The community’s shared set of standard achievements or concrete puzzle solutions. Exemplars are the basis for seeing resemblances that create new puzzles
Disciplinary matrix: broad sense of ‘paradigm’
What the members of a scientific community, and them alone, share. All shared commitments that bind scientists into a distinct community.
Anomalies and crisis
An anomaly stands to a crisis like a splash of snow stands to an avalanche
In a crisis, scientists start philosophizing. It is a period of extraordinary rather than normal science
Kuhn argues that crises are a good thing for science
Revolutions
Scientific revolutions (plural) vs. The scientific revolution
Paradigm 1 –> normal science –> crisis and revolutions –> paradigm 2 –> etc.
Revolutions bring about “changes in worldview”. After a revolution, scientists “work in a different world” and “speak a different language”.
Revolutions raise the question of progress.
- Incommensurability
Incommensurability
Not comparable using a common standard
Kuhn’s holdning til positivisterne og Popper
Mente at deres opfattelse af videnskabelig udvikling er for rationalistisk.
Kuhns centrale spørsgmal
Hvordan har videnskaben faktisk udviklet sig?
Hvad er forholdet mellem tradition (teoretiske rammer) og fornyelse i videnskaben?
Hvad inspirerede Kuhn til paradigmeteorien?
Uforståeligheden af Aristoteles’ skrifter om fysik.
“…as I was reading him, Aristotle appeared not only ignorant of mechanics, but a dreadfully bad physical scientist as well”
Hvis vi vil forstå Aristoteles, må vi forsøge at forstå Aristoteles verden, altså den teoretiske og historiske ramme for hans skrifter.
Videnskab uden fælles standarder kaldes for…
førparadigmatiske situationer
Videnskab er et socialt og historisk fænomen
Videnskabelige teorier udvikles altid i et forskersamfund i en bestemt historisk periode. Videnskab forudsætter fælles standarder i form af grundlæggende teoretiske antagelser, teorier og metoder.
Den faglige matrice (vigtigt!)
Eksemplarer - grundlæggende forklaringer/mekanismer og skabeloner for problemløsning.
* Skoleksempler på anvendelsen af de symbolske generalisationer, centrale figurer i lærebøger
Symbolske generaliseringer - lovmæssigheder og principper
* Newtons 2. lov, ligevægtsligningen
Værdier - generelle målsætsninger og idealer for videnskabelighed
* nøjagtighed, simpelhed, vægten på reproducerbarhed og kvantitative mål.
Metafysiske overbevisninger - Fælles forpligtende opfattelser af hvordan naturen grundlæggende er indrettet
* Kroppen som en compliceert maskine, hjertet som en pumpe, gener som “koder”
Hvorfor er den faglige matrice vigtig for biologer?
Kuhns begreber kan være nyttigt værktøj i analysen af videnskabelige discipliners historie samt nutidige videnskabelige kontroverser.
Forskere fra forskellige discipliner kan være uenige om videnskabelige standarder og teoretiske forudsætninger.
Biologier om fysikernes tilgang: modellerne for simple og idealiserede til at indfange den biologiske kompleksitet. Det er vigtigt at modellerne giver et realistisk og nøjagtigt billede af den biologiske process.
Systembiologi
En interdisciplinær tilgang til løsning af komplekse problemer, ofte via modellering af store datasæt fra comics-discipliner
Involverer ofte samarbejde mellem eksperimentelle biologer og forskere specialiseret i matematik modellering eller computerstimulering
