Total Posts:9|Showing Posts:1-9
Jump to topic:

The Kuhn Cycle

Danb6177
Posts: 433
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/25/2016 12:38:35 AM
Posted: 8 months ago
In The Structure of Scientific Revolutions written by Thomas Kuhn, Kuhn puts forth his theory (not sure if theory is the proper term) on paradigm shifts in scientific thought.

I grabbed this definition online

Thomas Kuhn defined paradigms as "universally recognized scientific achievements that, for a time, provide model problems and solutions for a community of researchers,"

A paradigm describes:

What is to be observed and scrutinized.

The kind of questions that are supposed to be asked and probed for answers in relation to this subject.

How these questions are to be structured.

How the results of scientific investigations should be interpreted.

In short, a paradigm is a comprehensive model of understanding that provides a field's members with viewpoints and rules on how to look at the field's problems and how to solve them. "Paradigms gain their status because they are more successful than their competitors in solving a few problems that the group of practritioners has come to recognize as acute."

http://www.thwink.org...

Is this Kuhn cycle something that is accepted across the science community?
Fkkize
Posts: 2,149
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/27/2016 4:47:59 PM
Posted: 8 months ago
At 3/25/2016 12:38:35 AM, Danb6177 wrote:
In The Structure of Scientific Revolutions written by Thomas Kuhn, Kuhn puts forth his theory (not sure if theory is the proper term) on paradigm shifts in scientific thought.

I grabbed this definition online

Thomas Kuhn defined paradigms as "universally recognized scientific achievements that, for a time, provide model problems and solutions for a community of researchers,"

A paradigm describes:

What is to be observed and scrutinized.

The kind of questions that are supposed to be asked and probed for answers in relation to this subject.

How these questions are to be structured.

How the results of scientific investigations should be interpreted.

In short, a paradigm is a comprehensive model of understanding that provides a field's members with viewpoints and rules on how to look at the field's problems and how to solve them. "Paradigms gain their status because they are more successful than their competitors in solving a few problems that the group of practritioners has come to recognize as acute."

http://www.thwink.org...

Is this Kuhn cycle something that is accepted across the science community?

To some extend, yes. The conclusions some post-modernists have misused Kuhn's work for, certainly not.
Whenever you hear the word "paradigm" thrown around, that's Kuhn. The Wikipedia article on modern evolutionary synthesis, for example, states it is the current paradigm in evolutionary biology.
https://en.wikipedia.org...
Some of the concepts he introduces are quite useful, like paradigms, paradigm shifts and of course the cycle. He is probably correct about these things and although I don't know about the opinions of graduated scientists, I don't think it hurts anyone to accept his concepts or the basic idea behind them and appreciate them for what they are.

I am however not so sure he is right about the more subtle things he wrote about. Especially the idea of insurmountability seems quite suspect to me, since, although it is flawed, the deductive-nomological model is quite plausible when applied in certain contexts, especially when it comes to physics.
: At 7/2/2016 3:05:07 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
:
: space contradicts logic
Danb6177
Posts: 433
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/28/2016 1:30:33 PM
Posted: 8 months ago
At 3/27/2016 4:47:59 PM, Fkkize wrote:
At 3/25/2016 12:38:35 AM, Danb6177 wrote:
In The Structure of Scientific Revolutions written by Thomas Kuhn, Kuhn puts forth his theory (not sure if theory is the proper term) on paradigm shifts in scientific thought.

I grabbed this definition online

Thomas Kuhn defined paradigms as "universally recognized scientific achievements that, for a time, provide model problems and solutions for a community of researchers,"

A paradigm describes:

What is to be observed and scrutinized.

The kind of questions that are supposed to be asked and probed for answers in relation to this subject.

How these questions are to be structured.

How the results of scientific investigations should be interpreted.

In short, a paradigm is a comprehensive model of understanding that provides a field's members with viewpoints and rules on how to look at the field's problems and how to solve them. "Paradigms gain their status because they are more successful than their competitors in solving a few problems that the group of practritioners has come to recognize as acute."

http://www.thwink.org...

Is this Kuhn cycle something that is accepted across the science community?

To some extend, yes. The conclusions some post-modernists have misused Kuhn's work for, certainly not.
Whenever you hear the word "paradigm" thrown around, that's Kuhn. The Wikipedia article on modern evolutionary synthesis, for example, states it is the current paradigm in evolutionary biology.
https://en.wikipedia.org...
Some of the concepts he introduces are quite useful, like paradigms, paradigm shifts and of course the cycle. He is probably correct about these things and although I don't know about the opinions of graduated scientists, I don't think it hurts anyone to accept his concepts or the basic idea behind them and appreciate them for what they are.

I am however not so sure he is right about the more subtle things he wrote about. Especially the idea of insurmountability seems quite suspect to me, since, although it is flawed, the deductive-nomological model is quite plausible when applied in certain contexts, especially when it comes to physics.

Do you think that the way this cycle works affects popular scientific theories from being falsifiable? If evidence against the paradigm is only seen as a mistake by the researcher?
autocorrect
Posts: 432
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/28/2016 2:00:31 PM
Posted: 8 months ago
I think there are fundamental problems centered around Kuhn's concept of incommensurability - which describes the relations between paradigms, for example Newtonian mechanics and Eistein's relativity. Incomensurability suggests these paradigms are utterly distinct - with the consequence that neither of them can be considered true, beyond the next paradigm shift.

My problem with this approach is quite simply that reality provides the continuity; which is to say, that Plato gazing up at the night sky in ancient Greece, may conceptualize and understand what he sees very differently from Stephen Hawking - but they are both looking at the same thing.

In Kuhn's conception, there's no truth, or prospect thereof - which leads to the question of why we don't continue with Plato's view of the universe, or revert to it. The theory contains no way of recognizing Einstein's relativity is superior to Newtonian mechanics - because it ignores the reality both try and describe. Scientific progress lies outside Kuhn's theory - and so he both allows for, and disagrees with scientific method.
Fkkize
Posts: 2,149
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/28/2016 2:38:24 PM
Posted: 8 months ago
At 3/28/2016 1:30:33 PM, Danb6177 wrote:
At 3/27/2016 4:47:59 PM, Fkkize wrote:
At 3/25/2016 12:38:35 AM, Danb6177 wrote:
In The Structure of Scientific Revolutions written by Thomas Kuhn, Kuhn puts forth his theory (not sure if theory is the proper term) on paradigm shifts in scientific thought.

I grabbed this definition online

Thomas Kuhn defined paradigms as "universally recognized scientific achievements that, for a time, provide model problems and solutions for a community of researchers,"

A paradigm describes:

What is to be observed and scrutinized.

The kind of questions that are supposed to be asked and probed for answers in relation to this subject.

How these questions are to be structured.

How the results of scientific investigations should be interpreted.

In short, a paradigm is a comprehensive model of understanding that provides a field's members with viewpoints and rules on how to look at the field's problems and how to solve them. "Paradigms gain their status because they are more successful than their competitors in solving a few problems that the group of practritioners has come to recognize as acute."

http://www.thwink.org...

Is this Kuhn cycle something that is accepted across the science community?

To some extend, yes. The conclusions some post-modernists have misused Kuhn's work for, certainly not.
Whenever you hear the word "paradigm" thrown around, that's Kuhn. The Wikipedia article on modern evolutionary synthesis, for example, states it is the current paradigm in evolutionary biology.
https://en.wikipedia.org...
Some of the concepts he introduces are quite useful, like paradigms, paradigm shifts and of course the cycle. He is probably correct about these things and although I don't know about the opinions of graduated scientists, I don't think it hurts anyone to accept his concepts or the basic idea behind them and appreciate them for what they are.

I am however not so sure he is right about the more subtle things he wrote about. Especially the idea of insurmountability

incommensurability I mean *sigh


Do you think that the way this cycle works affects popular scientific theories from being falsifiable? If evidence against the paradigm is only seen as a mistake by the researcher?

Kuhn's analysis of scientific change is, I believe, mistaken. Just as incommensurability his picture of normal science and revolutionary science are widely rejected and I don't recall anyone defending them nowadays.
Revisions in science happen with greater frequency and less impact than Kuhn describes. Not every revision amounts to a whole new theory of quantum mechanics, for example. QM, relativity and the discovery of DNA are quite rare and exceptional events in science. Especially lately, since there has been nothing to even suggest that QM, our strongest theory I believe, is mistaken.
Further, for Kuhn, a revolution happens when the amount of anomalies and insufficienciy of the established theory reach a critical threshold, but there have been many discoveries during the time of "normal science". For example, the discovery of the DNA's double-helical structure was unexpected and immediately suggested the correct mechanism of genome duplication, but does not qualify as a revolution in the Kuhnian sense.
Nonetheless, his work was very influential and remains thought provoking to this day.
: At 7/2/2016 3:05:07 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
:
: space contradicts logic
Danb6177
Posts: 433
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/30/2016 2:39:19 PM
Posted: 8 months ago
At 3/28/2016 2:38:24 PM, Fkkize wrote:
At 3/28/2016 1:30:33 PM, Danb6177 wrote:
At 3/27/2016 4:47:59 PM, Fkkize wrote:
At 3/25/2016 12:38:35 AM, Danb6177 wrote:
In The Structure of Scientific Revolutions written by Thomas Kuhn, Kuhn puts forth his theory (not sure if theory is the proper term) on paradigm shifts in scientific thought.

I grabbed this definition online

Thomas Kuhn defined paradigms as "universally recognized scientific achievements that, for a time, provide model problems and solutions for a community of researchers,"

A paradigm describes:

What is to be observed and scrutinized.

The kind of questions that are supposed to be asked and probed for answers in relation to this subject.

How these questions are to be structured.

How the results of scientific investigations should be interpreted.

In short, a paradigm is a comprehensive model of understanding that provides a field's members with viewpoints and rules on how to look at the field's problems and how to solve them. "Paradigms gain their status because they are more successful than their competitors in solving a few problems that the group of practritioners has come to recognize as acute."

http://www.thwink.org...

Is this Kuhn cycle something that is accepted across the science community?

To some extend, yes. The conclusions some post-modernists have misused Kuhn's work for, certainly not.
Whenever you hear the word "paradigm" thrown around, that's Kuhn. The Wikipedia article on modern evolutionary synthesis, for example, states it is the current paradigm in evolutionary biology.
https://en.wikipedia.org...
Some of the concepts he introduces are quite useful, like paradigms, paradigm shifts and of course the cycle. He is probably correct about these things and although I don't know about the opinions of graduated scientists, I don't think it hurts anyone to accept his concepts or the basic idea behind them and appreciate them for what they are.

I am however not so sure he is right about the more subtle things he wrote about. Especially the idea of insurmountability

incommensurability I mean *sigh


Do you think that the way this cycle works affects popular scientific theories from being falsifiable? If evidence against the paradigm is only seen as a mistake by the researcher?

Kuhn's analysis of scientific change is, I believe, mistaken. Just as incommensurability his picture of normal science and revolutionary science are widely rejected and I don't recall anyone defending them nowadays.
Revisions in science happen with greater frequency and less impact than Kuhn describes. Not every revision amounts to a whole new theory of quantum mechanics, for example. QM, relativity and the discovery of DNA are quite rare and exceptional events in science. Especially lately, since there has been nothing to even suggest that QM, our strongest theory I believe, is mistaken.
Further, for Kuhn, a revolution happens when the amount of anomalies and insufficienciy of the established theory reach a critical threshold, but there have been many discoveries during the time of "normal science". For example, the discovery of the DNA's double-helical structure was unexpected and immediately suggested the correct mechanism of genome duplication, but does not qualify as a revolution in the Kuhnian sense.
Nonetheless, his work was very influential and remains thought provoking to this day.

So your saying that his ideas are general not supported. I personally would have issue seeing scientific theories as falsifiable under Kuhns cycle. Its seems to be a sort of rigging of the deck to state that challenges to a theory must fit into the theories idea of what are proper disagreements.
Fkkize
Posts: 2,149
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/30/2016 3:29:17 PM
Posted: 8 months ago
At 3/30/2016 2:39:19 PM, Danb6177 wrote:
At 3/28/2016 2:38:24 PM, Fkkize wrote:
At 3/28/2016 1:30:33 PM, Danb6177 wrote:
At 3/27/2016 4:47:59 PM, Fkkize wrote:
At 3/25/2016 12:38:35 AM, Danb6177 wrote:
In The Structure of Scientific Revolutions written by Thomas Kuhn, Kuhn puts forth his theory (not sure if theory is the proper term) on paradigm shifts in scientific thought.

I grabbed this definition online

Thomas Kuhn defined paradigms as "universally recognized scientific achievements that, for a time, provide model problems and solutions for a community of researchers,"

A paradigm describes:

What is to be observed and scrutinized.

The kind of questions that are supposed to be asked and probed for answers in relation to this subject.

How these questions are to be structured.

How the results of scientific investigations should be interpreted.

In short, a paradigm is a comprehensive model of understanding that provides a field's members with viewpoints and rules on how to look at the field's problems and how to solve them. "Paradigms gain their status because they are more successful than their competitors in solving a few problems that the group of practritioners has come to recognize as acute."

http://www.thwink.org...

Is this Kuhn cycle something that is accepted across the science community?

To some extend, yes. The conclusions some post-modernists have misused Kuhn's work for, certainly not.
Whenever you hear the word "paradigm" thrown around, that's Kuhn. The Wikipedia article on modern evolutionary synthesis, for example, states it is the current paradigm in evolutionary biology.
https://en.wikipedia.org...
Some of the concepts he introduces are quite useful, like paradigms, paradigm shifts and of course the cycle. He is probably correct about these things and although I don't know about the opinions of graduated scientists, I don't think it hurts anyone to accept his concepts or the basic idea behind them and appreciate them for what they are.

I am however not so sure he is right about the more subtle things he wrote about. Especially the idea of insurmountability

incommensurability I mean *sigh


Do you think that the way this cycle works affects popular scientific theories from being falsifiable? If evidence against the paradigm is only seen as a mistake by the researcher?

Kuhn's analysis of scientific change is, I believe, mistaken. Just as incommensurability his picture of normal science and revolutionary science are widely rejected and I don't recall anyone defending them nowadays.
Revisions in science happen with greater frequency and less impact than Kuhn describes. Not every revision amounts to a whole new theory of quantum mechanics, for example. QM, relativity and the discovery of DNA are quite rare and exceptional events in science. Especially lately, since there has been nothing to even suggest that QM, our strongest theory I believe, is mistaken.
Further, for Kuhn, a revolution happens when the amount of anomalies and insufficienciy of the established theory reach a critical threshold, but there have been many discoveries during the time of "normal science". For example, the discovery of the DNA's double-helical structure was unexpected and immediately suggested the correct mechanism of genome duplication, but does not qualify as a revolution in the Kuhnian sense.
Nonetheless, his work was very influential and remains thought provoking to this day.

So your saying that his ideas are general not supported.

Incommensurability and scientific change are not, but these are not his only ideas.
Or rather, most of what he says is very sensible on the surface, but he draws radical and unsupported conclusions from that.

I personally would have issue seeing scientific theories as falsifiable under Kuhns cycle. Its seems to be a sort of rigging of the deck to state that challenges to a theory must fit into the theories idea of what are proper disagreements.

Well, if we accept all of his theses, then it would be hard to disagree with this. But Kuhn makes a lot of mistakes in his reasoning, so I don't think his book is a great thread to scientific objectivity.
For example, although he argues scientific progress is not linear, not cumulative and undergoes rapid changes in paradigm which completely invalidate the preceding paradigm, yet the entire last century is a decisive counter example to that.
Quantum mechanics was developed over the course of multiple decades. It did not entirely replace classical mechanics, as we still use non-quantum (and non-relativistic) physics to this day.
: At 7/2/2016 3:05:07 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
:
: space contradicts logic
Fkkize
Posts: 2,149
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/30/2016 3:35:28 PM
Posted: 8 months ago
so I don't think his book is a great threat to scientific objectivity.
: At 7/2/2016 3:05:07 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
:
: space contradicts logic
dylancatlow
Posts: 12,245
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/30/2016 4:07:38 PM
Posted: 8 months ago
I think his model is useful insofar as it encourages us to question the fundamental assumptions that underlie whole fields of inquiry, and to acknowledge that historically speaking, many of them are probably false, and if/when they are eventually discarded, much of the "progress" we thought had been made will turn out to have been on the wrong track and will need to be thrown out as well. Entire generations of scientists can fail to make any progress when they become too obsessed with making discoveries within a given framework and don't spend enough time asking whether that framework is actually justified. Our level of scientific progress would probably be much higher today if people had devoted more of their energies to questioning such frameworks.