Of The Moon
Forest And The Trees
describes two kinds of scientific inquiry in his book, "The
Structure Of Scientific Revolutions." "Normal"
science, according to Kuhn, is that body of work devoted to the
support of particular theories. "Extraordinary" science
is created by the problems left over by normal science, and in
turn creates new paradigms.
to his conclusions about the nature of scientific inquiry by
observing its history. Time and again, a deeply entrenched theory
that had provided scientists with breakthroughs and answers would
eventually prove inadequate. These theories would be replaced
by newer ones, often being heavily resisted. The new theories
would be hailed by proponants as The Answer, but without fail
they would be replaced by yet newer and better theories.
a cycle that is found throughout the history of science. Any
theory starts out as a skeletal explanation for the most pressing
problems left over by the previous theory. While the initial
thrust of moving a new theory into acceptance is revolutionary,
the work it leaves behind is "normal" science.
| Paradigms (Top)
his book, Kuhn uses the word "paradigm" in a way that
was new at the time.
"paradigm" meant a pattern that could be used to create
sets, for example the paradigm for conjugating the verb "parler"
in French allows us to conjugate other verbs using the same pattern.
"paradigm" to mean something larger. In his writing
"paradigm" means the predictive part of a theory that
allows scientists to generate work and frames all observations
in terms of the theory.
to note that Kuhn published his book in 1962, and by the time
of the ninth edition of the Oxford Concise Dictionary in 1995,
his meaning for the word is the first entry, before the older
definition it surpasses. This speaks to the influence this book
|Normal Science (Top)
sets about to "mop up" the unanswered questions created
by the new, skeletal theory. This work involves conducting experiments
that bolster the new theory and seek to enlarge the paradigm's
range of applications beyond its initial, limited problem set.
Kuhn even goes on to say, "No part of the aim of normal
science is to call forth new sorts of phenomenon; indeed those
that will not fit the box are often not seen at all." [Kuhn,
up in his explanation of normal science both its strengths and
its weaknesses. In its favor, normal science provides us with
the bulk of scientific discovery. It is the largest section of
scientific work. Also, using a shared paradigm allows scientists
a common ground, which they use to study their subjects with
a greater amount of depth than they could without the paradigm.
In the absence of a shared paradigm, scientists have to spend
time recreating sets of basic assumptions with which to do work,
and work done by different scientists are not commensurable.
its own work, normal science uncovers counterinstances, real
world phenomenon that contradicts the prevailing theory. At first
normal science ignores and rationalizes these counterinstances.
Left unresolved, however, the tension they create becomes great
enough that scientists are motivated to look for a new and better
theory, one that will add an explanation for the counterinstances
without losing previously gained explanations. This is a time
of "crisis" for science, the time when new theories
are vying to usurp the older entrenched theory.
to Kuhn, scientists do not reject theories simply because they
do not account for all the evidence, or even when they are contradicted.
"Once it has achieved the status of a paradigm, a scientific
theory is declared invalid only if an alternate candidate is
available to take its place." [Kuhn, pg 77] While counterinstances
are a motivating force to go looking for other theories the accepted
theory will not be replaced until a suitable candidate theory
|The Crisis Of Science
some interesting things to note about how the two modes of science
differ. The defining difference between the two modes lies in
the status of paradigms; in normal science one paradigm dominates
and in extraordinary science new paradigms vie with the established
one. From this difference we can say a few things about normal
and extraordinary science.
science, the assumptions that form the basis for the reigning
paradigm are often treated as logical statements or even tautologies.
Data that doesn't fit the paradigm is considered anomalous. Scientists
work under the assumption that the anomalies will resolve themselves
in light of other discoveries or the invention of new technologies.
makes a paradigm generate work for scientists lies in the fact
that there are counterinstances. It is the work of normal science
to extend the reach of the current paradigm as widely as possible.
If the paradigm does become a simple logical statement, then
its reach is, by definition, already infinite and no work needs
to be done. What happens to these paradigms? They cease to be
research problems and become engineering tools. [Kuhn, pg 79]
exists in a state of tension. Too many counterinstances, or a
few select ones, and young turk scientists will seek new paradigms
that work better. Not enough counterinstances and there is nothing