For Carnap, as for Reichenbach, the choice of framework or coordinating definitions was conventional, a matter of convenience or heuristic fertility, whereas for committed Kuhnian normal scientists the foundational tenets of their paradigm are deep truths about the world, principles not subject to empirical test.
However, in a crisis situation, fertility becomes a key element in theory and paradigm choice. Meanwhile, Friedman himself has extensively developed the idea of historically contingent but constitutive a prioris e. From the old point of view, there is disruptive and incommensurability, but defenders of the new viewpoint manages to establish a kind of continuity.
Friedman goes well beyond Kuhn in stressing the role of philosophical ideas in establishing this continuity. As models, these constructions must be concretized to some degree before they can be applied to the real world. While the idealizationists tend to reject Kuhnian revolutions as too discontinuous and irrational, they do see a resemblance to their internalistic, dialectical conception of scientific development.
Hence there can be a significant change of world-conception. However, the structuralists were and are interested in intertheory relations, and models are central to their non-sentential conception of theories. These are models in the formal sense, but Kuhn found insightful connections to his own use of models in the form of exemplars. For both Kuhn and the structuralists it is the collection of exemplars or models, not an abstract statement of a theory, that carries the weight in scientific inquiry.
Already the early Kuhn, especially in the postscript to the second edition of Structure , largely abandoned the traditional conception of theories as deductive systems, even in physics, and substituted informal collections of models of various, exemplary kinds, along with a toolbox of expert practices for constructing and applying them Cartwright , Giere , Teller Meanwhile, important French thinkers had already taken a historical approach, one that explicitly characterizes science as a series of breaks or coupures.
However, the French and Germanic traditions have some roots in common. For him the mind is not a passive wax tablet; rather, it actively forges internal links among ideas, yet it is also often surprised by the resistant exteriority of the natural world.
Against traditional metaphysics, philosophy of science should limit itself to what the science of the time allows—but not dogmatically so. Bachelard, French physicist and philosopher-historian of science, also believed that only by studying history of science can we gain an adequate understanding of human reason. In Le Nouvel Esprit Scientifique , Bachelard argued that the worldview of classical physics, valuable in its own time, eventually became an obstacle to future progress in physics.
Hence a break was needed. Here, then, we already find the idea that a successful theory can lose its luster by being considered exhausted of its resources and thus lacking in fertility.
Like Brunschvicg, Bachelard held that a defensible, realist philosophy had to be based on the science of its day. Hence, scientific revolutions have and ought to have brought about epistemological revolutions. Future mental activity as well as future empirical findings are likely to require another rupture. Bachelard was willing to speak of progress toward the truth. He made much of the fact that successor frameworks, such as non-Euclidean geometry or quantum physics, retain key predecessor results as special cases and, in effect, contextualize them.
Canguilhem was more interested in the biological and health sciences than Bachelard and gave great attention to the distinction between the normal and the pathological, a distinction that does not arise in physical science. For this and other reasons, in his view, we can expect no reduction of biology to physics. Canguilhem provided a more nuanced conception of obstacles and ruptures, noting, for example, that an approach such as vitalism that constitutes an obstacle in one domain of research can simultaneously play a positive role elsewhere, as in helping biological scientists to resist reductive thinking.
Here we find context sensitivities and heuristic resources difficult to capture in terms of a context- and content-neutral logic of science such as the logical empiricists espoused. Bachelard and Canguilhem also had less disruptive conceptions of scientific objectivity and scientific closure than Kuhn.
Both Frenchmen emphasized the importance of norms and denied that disciplinary agreement was as weak as Kuhnian consensus. Once again we meet a two-level account. Writes Hacking:. Hacking, too, historicizes the Kantian conception. Yet they are at the same time conditioned and formed in history, and can be uprooted by later, radical, historical transformations.
They have become part of our standards for what it is, to find out the truth. They establish criteria of truthfulness. The styles are how we reason in the sciences. To repeat: No foundation. The style does not answer to some external canon of truth independent of itself. Thus he feels free to employ telling bits of popular culture in laying out his claims, and he admits to being whiggish in starting from the present and working backward to find out how we got here.
Yet people living before and after the historical crystallization of a style would find each other mutually unintelligible. Hacking recognizes that Kuhnian problems of relativism rather than subjectivism lurk in such positions. This sort of unintelligibility runs deeper than a Kuhnian translation failure. It is not a question of determining which old style statements match presumed new style truths; rather, it is a question of the conditions for an utterance to make a claim that is either true or false at all.
Writes Hacking,. By contrast, Kuhnian paradigms include a set of positive assertions about the world. To what extent was Kuhn indebted to these thinkers? As noted above, he took Kant but not Hegel very seriously. He was largely self-taught in philosophy of science. Among his contemporaries, he was familiar with Popper but not in any detail with the various strains of logical positivism and logical empiricism, in particular the positions of Carnap and Reichenbach.
Apparently, he was only slightly acquainted with the work of Bachelard while writing Structure , and they never engaged in a fruitful interchange Baltas et al. Kuhn more than anyone in the Anglo-American world pointed out the need for larger-sized units than individual theories in making sense of modern science. If we think of authors such as the Annales historian Fernand Braudel, with his distinct time-scales, we recognize that the attribution of transformative change clearly depends heavily on the choice of time-scale and on how fine- or course-grained is our approach.
Hacking , 76 makes this point with reference to the French context:. Foucault does not speak of revolution. Oliver Wendell Holmes, Jr. Early Kuhn did seem to believe that there is a single, underlying pattern to the development of mature sciences that is key to their success, and late Kuhn a different pattern. Has either early or late Kuhn found such a pattern, or has he imposed his own philosophical structure on the vagaries and vicissitudes of history?
For a recent selection see Soler et al. Still others accept that some revolutions are Kuhnian but deny that all of them are. One common criticism is that not all revolutionary advances are preceded by an acute crisis, that is, by major failures of preceding research.
Kuhn himself allowed for exceptions already in Structure. Yet another is that there need be little logical or linguistic discontinuity.
A rapid, seemingly transformative change in research practices may involve simply a marked gain in data accessibility or accuracy or computational processing ability via new instrumentation or experimental design. Only a few examples can be considered here. Do revolutions consist, according to Kuhn, of major new materials experimental facts, theories, models, instruments, techniques entering a scientific domain or, instead, of a major restructuring or rearrangement of materials, practices, and community affiliations already present?
Kuhn states that the relativity revolution might serve as. The reader may find this claim confusing, however, because in the just-preceding paragraphs Kuhn had emphasized the ontological and conceptual changes of precisely this revolution, e. They are newly introduced entities; hence, we may infer, new content. Yet Kuhn surely does have a point worth saving, in that relativity theory still deals with most of the same kinds of phenomena and problems as classical mechanics and employs immediate successors to the classical concepts.
But, if so, then reorganization of familiar materials implies a disciplinary continuity through revolution that Kuhn minimized. But he also emphasized that revolution involves social reorganization of the field not merely the cognitive reorganization of an individual , from one form of scientific life to another, incompatible with it.
By implication, his structural or formal conception of revolution excluded the alternative idea of revolution as extraordinary bursts in substantive content. He distinguishes two kinds of reclassification, in terms of the language of tree structures used in computer science: branch jumping and tree switching.
Branch jumping reclassifies or relocates something to another branch of the same tree, e. New branches can appear and old branches can be eliminated. Meanwhile, tree switching replaces an entire classification tree by a different tree structure based on different principles of classification, as when Darwin replaced the static classification tree of Linnaeus by one based on evolutionary genealogy and when Mendeleev replaced alternative classification systems of the chemical elements by his own table.
Nersessian herself , emphasizes model-based reasoning. These are no longer static cases or exemplars, for they possess an internal dynamic. Howard Margolis distinguishes two kinds of revolutions, depending on which kinds of problems they solve. Those revolutions that bridge gaps, he contends, differ from those that surmount or penetrate or somehow evade barriers.
More broadly, deeply ingrained cultural habits of mind can close off opportunities that, according to the perspective of later generations, were staring them in the face. No new gap-crossing developments were needed. He concludes that, rather than a gap to be bridged, the problem was a cognitive barrier that needed to be removed, a barrier that blocked expert mathematical astronomers from bringing together, as mutually relevant, what turned out to be the crucial premises, and then linking them in the tight way that Copernicus did.
Here one thinks of a model popular with mystery writers, where an everyday observation leads to a sudden change in perspective. Davis Baird contends that there can be revolutions in practice that are not conceptual revolutions.
He emphasizes the knowledge embodied in skills and in instruments themselves. His central example is analytic chemistry. Recently, Rogier De Langhe , a and b, has been developing a broadly Kuhnian, two-process account of science from an economics standpoint. Instead of doing a series of historical cases, De Langhe and colleagues are developing algorithms to detect subtle patterns in the large citation databases now available.
The account of the dynamics of science in Structure ill fit the rapid splitting and recombining of fields in the post-World War II era of Big Science, as Kuhn recognized. So he excluded from his account the division and recombination of already mature fields such as happened with the emergence of biochemistry.
This exclusion is troubling, given the universal thrust of his account. It is as if Kuhn admitted that his account applies only to a particular historical period that is now largely past; yet he also wrote as if the normal-revolutionary model would apply to mature disciplines into the long future. However, he still gave little attention to the more-or-less reverse process of new fields coming into existence by combinations of previously distinct fields as well as to cross- and trans-disciplinary research, in which a variety of different specialists somehow succeed in working together Galison , Kellert , Andersen Molecular genetics quickly grew into the very general field of molecular biology.
Less than two decades after Watson and Crick, Gunther Stent could already write in his textbook:. There is something paradigmatic about molecular biology and also something revolutionary about its rapid progress and expansion.
It is not clear how to characterize this and similar developments. Was this a Kuhnian revolution? It did involve major social and intellectual reorganization, one that conflicted with the previous ones in some respects but without undermining the Darwinian paradigm.
Quite the contrary. Or is molecular biology more like a style of scientific practice than a paradigm? Instead, it seems better to regard it as a large toolkit of methods or techniques applicable to several specialty fields rather than as an integrative theory-framework within one field. Should we then focus on practices rather than on integrative theories in our interpretation of Kuhnian paradigms?
The trouble with this move is that practices can also change so rapidly that it is tempting to speak of revolutionary transformations of scientific work even though there is little change in the overarching theoretical framework see Part II of Soler et al.
Moreover, as Baird points out, the rapid replacement of old practices by new is often a product of efficiency rather than intellectual incompatibility.
Why continue to do gene sequencing by hand when automated processing in now available? Replacement can also be a product of change in research style, given that, as Kuhn already recognized, scientific communities are cultural communities. See also Brush and Porter This was an explosion of work within the classical mechanical paradigm rather than a slow, puzzle-by-puzzle articulation of precisely that paradigm in its own previous terms.
Or was it? For Kuhn himself recognized that modern mathematical physics only came into existence starting around and that Maxwellian electrodynamics was a major departure from the strictly Newtonian paradigm. In any case, there was much resistance among physicists to the new style of reasoning. The kinetic theory of gases quickly grew into statistical mechanics, which leapt the boundaries of its initial specialty field. New genres as well as new styles of mathematical-physical thinking quickly replaced old—and displaced the old generation of practitioners.
Furthermore, the biological and chemical sciences do not readily invite a Kuhnian analysis, given the usual, theory-centered interpretation of Kuhn. For biological fields rarely produce lawful theories of the kind supposedly found in physics.
Indeed, it is controversial whether there exist distinctly biological laws at all. What of the emerging field of evolutionary-developmental biology evo-devo?
It is too soon to know whether future work in this accelerating field will merely complete evolutionary biology rather than displacing it. It does seem unlikely that it will amount to a complete, revolutionary overturning of the Darwinian paradigm. Kuhn might reply that the discovery of homeobox genes overturned a smaller paradigm based on the expectation that the genetic makeup of different orders of organisms would have little in common at the relevant level of description.
And if it complements the Darwinian paradigm, then evo-devo is, again, surely too big and too rapidly advancing to be considered a mere, piecemeal, puzzle-solving articulation of that paradigm. Based on work to date, evo-devo biologist Sean B. Carroll, for example, holds precisely the complement view—complementary yet revolutionary:. Kuhn treated a scientific field and perhaps science as a whole as a system with a far more interesting internal dynamics than either Popper or the logical empiricists had proposed.
The famous opening paragraphs of Structure read as though Kuhn had analyzed a historical time series and extracted a pattern from it inductively as the basis for his model of scientific development. The broadly cyclic nature of this pattern immediately jumps out at dynamical systems theorists. This is unfortunate, since the new developments might have provided valuable tools for articulating his own ideas.
For example, it would appear that, as Kuhnian normal science becomes more robust in the sense of closing gaps, tightening connections, and thereby achieving multiple lines of derivation and hence mutual reinforcement of many results. However, that very fact makes normal science increasingly fragile, less resilient to shocks, and more vulnerable to cascading failure Nickles Kuhn claimed, contrary to the expectations of scientific realists, that there would be no end to scientific revolutions in ongoing, mature sciences, with no reason to believe that such revolutions would gradually diminish in size as these sciences continued to mature.
But it would seem to follow from his model that he could have made a still stronger point. The reason is that just mentioned: as research continues filling gaps and further articulating the paradigm, normal science becomes more tightly integrated but also forges tighter links to relevant neighboring fields.
Taking these developments into account predicts that Kuhnian normal science should evolve toward an ever more critical state in which something that was once an innocuous anomaly can now trigger a cascade of failures Nickles a and b , sometimes rather quickly. For there will be little slack left to absorb such discrepancies. If so, then we have an important sort of dynamical nonlinearity even in normal science, which means that Kuhnian normal science itself is more dynamic, less static, than he made it out to be.
It seems clear that Kuhnian revolutions are bifurcations in the nonlinear dynamical sense, and it seems plausible to think that Kuhnian revolutions may have a fat-tailed or power-law distribution or worse when their size is plotted over time on an appropriate scale. To elaborate a bit: one intriguing suggestion coming from work in nonlinear dynamics is that scientific changes may be like earthquakes and many other phenomena perhaps including punctuated equilibrium events of the Gould-Eldredge sort as well as mass extinction events in biology in following a power-law distribution in which there are exponentially fewer changes of a given magnitude than the number of changes in the next lower category.
For example, there might be only one magnitude 5 change or above for every ten magnitude 4 changes on average over time , as in the Gutenberg-Richter scale for earthquakes. If so, then scientific revolutions would be scale free, meaning that large revolutions in the future are more probable than a Gaussian normal distribution would predict.
Such a conclusion would have important implications for the issue of scientific realism. To be sure, working out such a timescale of revolutions and their sizes in the history of science would be difficult and controversial, but Nicholas Rescher , has begun the task in terms of ranking scientific discoveries and studying their distribution over time. Derek Price had previously introduced quantitative historical considerations into history of science, pointing out, among many other things, the exponential increase in the number of scientists and quantity of their publications since the Scientific Revolution.
Such an exponential increase, faster than world population increase, obviously cannot continue forever and, in fact, was already beginning to plateau in industrialized nations in the s. Among philosophers, Rescher was probably the first to analyze aggregate data concerning scientific innovation, arguing that, as research progresses, discoveries of a given magnitude become more difficult. Rescher concludes that we must eventually expect a decrease in the rate of discovery of a given magnitude and hence, presumably, a similar decrease in the rate of scientific revolutions.
Although he does not mention Schumpeter in this work, he expresses a similar view:. Since we can regard scientific practices and organization as highly designed technological systems, the work of Charles Perrow and others on technological risk is relevant here.
See Perrow for entry into this approach. Contagion is, of course, necessary for a revolt to succeed as a revolution. Steven Kellert considers and rejects the claim that chaos theory represents a Kuhnian revolution. Although it does provide a new set of research problems and standards and, to some degree, transforms our worldview, it does not overturn and replace an entrenched theory.
Kellert argues that chaos theory does not even constitute the emergence of a new, mature science rather than an extension of standard mechanics, although it may constitute a new style of reasoning. If a theory is just a toolbox of models, something like an integrated collection of Kuhnian exemplars Giere , Teller , then the claim for a revolutionary theory development of some kind becomes more plausible.
For nonlinear dynamics highlights a new set of models and the strange attractors that characterize their behaviors. In addition, complex systems theorists often stress the holistic, anti-reductive, emergent nature of the systems they study, by contrast with the linear, Newtonian paradigm. Kellert also questions whether traditional dynamics was really in a special state of crisis prior to the recent emphasis on nonlinear dynamics, for difficulties in dealing with nonlinear phenomena have been apparent almost from the beginning.
Since Kuhn himself emphasized, against Popper, that all theories face anomalies at all times, it is unfortunately all too easy, after an apparently revolutionary development, to point back and claim crisis. While he initially claimed that his model applied only to mature natural sciences such as physics, chemistry, and parts of biology, he believed that the essential tension point applies, in varying degrees, to all enterprises that place a premium on creative innovation.
His work thereby raises interesting questions, such as which kinds of social structures make revolution necessary by contrast with more continuous varieties of transformative change and whether those that do experience revolutions tend to be more progressive by some standard. We have already met several alternative conceptions of transformative change in the sciences. Kuhn believed that innovation in the arts was often too divergent fully to express the essential tension. By contrast, the sciences, he claimed, do not seek innovation for its own sake, at least normal scientists do not.
But what about technological innovation which is often closely related to mature science and what about business enterprise more generally? And in the sciences as well as economic life there would seem to be other forms of displacement than the logical and epistemological forms commonly recognized by philosophers of science.
Consider the familiar economic phenomenon of obsolescence, including cases that lead to major social reorganization as technological systems are improved. Think of algorithmic data mining and statistical computation, robotics, and the automation to be found in any modern biological laboratory.
Such companies can sometimes scale up their more efficient processes to displace the major players, as did Japanese steel makers to the big U. As part of his new radical approach to knowledge he proposed a scientific method that was based on observation and reasoning. Thus, hypotheses were to be proven or disproven through rigorous experimentation. The old accepted knowledge was to be challenged and tested in order to increase human understanding of the universe.
Baconian methodology stated that information needed to exchanged, that the state needed to play an important role and that experimentation was key to the expansion of knowledge.
As Bacon himself explained, Western progress was founded on three major discoveries: printing, gunpowder and the magnet. Thomas Hobbes was an acquaintance of Bacon and held a view which was startlingly new in its approach. He proposed using advancements in science to overcome the faults in nature and difficulties in the material world.
There were figures close to the royal court who would make great strides in scientific discovery, including William Gilbert who was court physician to Elizabeth I and James I.
England and in particular the royal court experienced a flourishing of talent in this period with progress being made in a variety of fields. In the field of biology, it was William Harvey, the court physician to both James I and Charles I who was to make a particularly important impact on the future of medicine.
In he published his findings after completing numerous dissections demonstrating how blood circulates in the body. Science became an autonomous discipline, distinct from both philosophy and technology, and it came to be regarded as having utilitarian goals. By the end of this period, it may not be too much to say that science had replaced Christianity as the focal point of European civilization. Continue reading from Encyclopedia Britannica.
The Scientific Revolution began in astronomy. Relying on virtually the same data as Ptolemy had possessed, Copernicus turned the world inside out, putting the Sun at the center and setting Earth into motion around it.
Bacteria and protists were first observed with a microscope by Antonie van Leeuwenhoek in , initiating the scientific field of microbiology. The book described basic oral anatomy and function, signs and symptoms of oral pathology, operative methods for removing decay and restoring teeth, periodontal disease pyorrhea , orthodontics, replacement of missing teeth, and tooth transplantation.
The book advanced the modern study of human anatomy. Privacy Policy. Skip to main content. The Age of Enlightenment.
Search for:. The Scientific Revolution. Roots of the Scientific Revolution The scientific revolution, which emphasized systematic experimentation as the most valid research method, resulted in developments in mathematics, physics, astronomy, biology, and chemistry. Learning Objectives Outline the changes that occurred during the Scientific Revolution that resulted in developments towards a new means for experimentation. Key Takeaways Key Points The scientific revolution was the emergence of modern science during the early modern period, when developments in mathematics, physics, astronomy, biology including human anatomy , and chemistry transformed societal views about nature.
The change to the medieval idea of science occurred for four reasons: collaboration, the derivation of new experimental methods, the ability to build on the legacy of existing scientific philosophy, and institutions that enabled academic publishing. Under the scientific method, which was defined and applied in the 17th century, natural and artificial circumstances were abandoned and a research tradition of systematic experimentation was slowly accepted throughout the scientific community.
During the scientific revolution, changing perceptions about the role of the scientist in respect to nature, and the value of experimental or observed evidence, led to a scientific methodology in which empiricism played a large, but not absolute, role. As the scientific revolution was not marked by any single change, many new ideas contributed. Key Terms empiricism : A theory stating that knowledge comes only, or primarily, from sensory experience.
It emphasizes evidence, especially the kind of evidence gathered through experimentation and by use of the scientific method. Galileo : An Italian thinker and key figure in the scientific revolution who improved the telescope, made astronomical observations, and put forward the basic principle of relativity in physics.
Baconian method : The investigative method developed by Sir Francis Bacon. This method was influential upon the development of the scientific method in modern science, but also more generally in the early modern rejection of medieval Aristotelianism. It has characterized natural science since the 17th century, consisting in systematic observation, measurement, and experiment, and the formulation, testing, and modification of hypotheses.
British Royal Society : A British learned society for science; possibly the oldest such society still in existence, having been founded in November Physics and Mathematics In the 16th and 17th centuries, European scientists began increasingly applying quantitative measurements to the measurement of physical phenomena on the earth, which translated into the rapid development of mathematics and physics.
Learning Objectives Distinguish between the different key figures of the scientific revolution and their achievements in mathematics and physics.
Key Takeaways Key Points The philosophy of using an inductive approach to nature was in strict contrast with the earlier, Aristotelian approach of deduction, by which analysis of known facts produced further understanding.
In practice, scientists believed that a healthy mix of both was needed—the willingness to question assumptions, yet also to interpret observations assumed to have some degree of validity. In the 16th and 17th centuries, European scientists began increasingly applying quantitative measurements to the measurement of physical phenomena on the earth. His contributions to observational astronomy include the telescopic confirmation of the phases of Venus, the discovery of the four largest satellites of Jupiter, and the observation and analysis of sunspots.
He removed the last doubts about the validity of the heliocentric model of the solar system. The electrical science developed rapidly following the first discoveries of William Gilbert.
Key Terms scientific method : A body of techniques for investigating phenomena, acquiring new knowledge, or correcting and integrating previous knowledge that apply empirical or measurable evidence subject to specific principles of reasoning.
Copernican Revolution : The paradigm shift from the Ptolemaic model of the heavens, which described the cosmos as having Earth stationary at the center of the universe, to the heliocentric model with the sun at the center of the solar system. It began in Europe towards the end of the Renaissance period, and continued through the late 18th century, influencing the intellectual social movement known as the Enlightenment. Portrait of Galileo Galilei by Giusto Sustermans, Astronomy Though astronomy is the oldest of the natural sciences, its development during the scientific revolution entirely transformed societal views about nature by moving from geocentrism to heliocentrism.
Learning Objectives Assess the work of both Copernicus and Kepler and their revolutionary ideas. Key Takeaways Key Points The development of astronomy during the period of the scientific revolution entirely transformed societal views about nature. Copernican heliocentrism is the name given to the astronomical model developed by Copernicus that positioned the sun near the center of the universe, motionless, with Earth and the other planets rotating around it in circular paths, modified by epicycles and at uniform speeds.
For over a century, few astronomers were convinced by the Copernican system. Tycho Brahe went so far as to construct a cosmology precisely equivalent to that of Copernicus, but with the earth held fixed in the center of the celestial sphere, instead of the sun. In , Johannes Kepler published his first book, which was the first to openly endorse Copernican cosmology by an astronomer since the s.
Galileo Galilei designed his own telescope, with which he made a number of critical astronomical observations. His observations and discoveries were among the most influential in the transition from geocentrism to heliocentrism.
Isaac Newton developed further ties between physics and astronomy through his law of universal gravitation, and irreversibly confirmed and further developed heliocentrism. Key Terms Copernicus : A Renaissance mathematician and astronomer , who formulated a heliocentric model of the universe which placed the sun, rather than the earth, at the center.
Copernican heliocentrism : The name given to the astronomical model developed by Nicolaus Copernicus and published in It departed from the Ptolemaic system that prevailed in western culture for centuries, placing Earth at the center of the universe.
0コメント