The structure of the scientific revolutions : rereading

Size: px

Start display at page:

Download "The structure of the scientific revolutions : rereading"

Willis Thomas
5 years ago
Views:

1 The structure of the scientific revolutions : rereading Vicente de Paulo Morais Júnior (São José dos Campos/SP - Brazil) it is in Education in the Methodist University of São Paulo (UMESP/SP) and Master in Education for the same University. Contact: vicentemjunior@hotmail.com Abstract To present research he/she had as objective accomplishes a rereading of the work "THE structure of Thomas Kuhn's scientific revolutions", establishing a connection among different authors as Alves (1981), Feyerabend (1971) and Masterman (1979), being treated then of a bibliographical research. The rereading will approach concepts, theories or teachings of Kuhn, such as paradigm, normal science, manuals, it rules, anomaly, jigsaw puzzle, concluding with crisis and revolution. Among the 'to draw' and 'to educate' a rereading of the work was structured, providing a new one to look, a ninth reading. Keywords- Thomas Kuhn; He/she structures scientific revolutions; rereading I. INTRODUCTION In the same way that all and any artistic expression produced in the humanity's history allows interpretations and consequently reinterpretations, the academic and scientific works especially in the area of humanities, also to they allow them. It is worth to highlight that that rereading proposal that here is done, he/she doesn't have relationship, either connection with the gender literary review. It is reinterpretation. A reinterpretation lacks a complex understanding of the work. Besides, that movement still needs creativity, because he/she intends to translate, to illustrate, to correlate the original work with metaphors, other artists / authors, and the personal experience. The final product, then, personal touches, that for his/her time has as main characteristic to agitate still more the work to "be read again." Being like this, the rereading transposes the "copy" idea. the reinterpretation, for more sensitive eyes, is configured as a new work, a new one to look, a new reading. Let us make a rereading of "THE structure of the scientific revolutions." Let us enter then in the world of Kuhn! II. THE WORK AND THE ARTIST Composing the International "Encyclopedia of the Unified" Science (1962), the work "THE structure of the scientific revolutions" of the North American Thomas Kuhn is outstanding, and because pioneer not to say, in the discussion of the philosophy of the science. Kuhn had been physical of formation and researcher of the history of the science. His/her contribution is going besides the philosophy of the science, being included the history of the science, creating solid and current theories. That combination of approaches between the philosophy and the 1 history of the science brings, to the time, an approach different from the approaches until then pieces, generating a divisor of waters in the study, reflection and research of the science. Of Jewish origin, Kuhn ( ) initially I/you had gone "" by the father in Hydraulic engineering. Later in a progressive school in the County of Westchester begins to show their aptitudes in mathematics. I accept at Harvard in 1940, it didn't begin Physics course well being considered a reasonable student. It is believed that the "problem" theories and "jigsaw puzzle" have been initiate in that initial moment of formation and their respective problems. The powders 2nd war motivated the researches of Kuhn in theoretical physics. Parallel he/she is interested in the philosophy and history of the science. Starting from 1950 it begins to teach linked disciplines to their studies and researches. Starting from then Kuhn publishes a series of works, being considered embryos of the work "THE structure of the scientific revolutions". before his/her more outstanding work, Kuhn publishes the work the Copernican revolution" in To "THE structure of the scientific revolutions" it was published in 1962, and in a second edition in 1970, where Kuhn increases a post-scriptum (1969). Thomas Samuel Kuhn, in his/her academic path went walking fast and conquering his/her space in great academic centers. It is noticed that to "THE structure of the scientific revolutions", work for the which the author is reminded, didn't happen in an isolated and only way. The work brings a harmonic combination between history of the science and philosophy of the science. The powderpublication, be the one of 1962 or the one of 1970, was white of intense critics. His/her work had been interpreted and adapted to different conjunctures and realities. (SWERDLOW, 2013). III. FIRST LINES IN THE REREADING: THE SCENERY HE WORK AND THE ARTIST Initially Kuhn approaches him/it that he points as classic concept of paradigm: I consider paradigm universally the scientific accomplishments recognized that, during some time, they supply problems and solutions model for the apprentices' of the science community. (KUHN, 1987, p. 13) Corroborating with the definitions above, Neves appears: In that sense, [the paradigm] so much it can be related to the concrete solution of a problem, and in that case it passes to be taken as a model to be proceeded, as,

2 because of the consensual validation that it is done around him, it is also the group of faiths and practices shared by a group. (2002, p.49) In agreement with Neves, two new characteristics appear for the paradigm definition: faiths and practices. Rubem Alves still mentions, that Thomas Kuhn approaches the paradigm concept as being something where the scientific community will look for answers (1981, p.190). Be in situations model, normative, the scientific community's "safe port" or that you/they involve faiths and practices, we verified that Kuhn draws an initial line for their theories starting from what denominates as paradigm. This because, starting from then, it is needed an analysis pre-pradigmatic; the inconsistencies or something that the paradigm was not prepared, that Kuhn had denominated as anomaly (1987, p.84); the confrontation between paradigm and anomaly, denominated as crisis (1987, p.107) and revolutions that will bring to the surface new paradigms, consequently, a certain scientific community's new professional commitments (1987, p.25). In that way, the paradigm is not just summarized to that "moment" accept for the scientific community. Kuhn appears: The period pre-paradigmatic, in matter is marked regularly by frequent and deep debates regarding methods, problems and legitimate solution patterns - although those debates serve more to define schools of what to produce an agreement. (1987, p. 72-3) Important to stand out that that transition period preparadigmatic and new paradigm comes "filled" by some statements of Kuhn as crisis and revolution, that will be approached further on. However, as that process it is cyclical, she chose in doing that relationship initially. Harnessed directly to the paradigm logic coined by Kuhn, we have the concept of normal science. Important to stand out that, before considering normal science, Kuhn firstly defines science and scientist, appearing: If the science is the meeting of facts, theories and methods gathered in the current texts, then scientists are men that, with or without success, they determined to contribute with an or other element for that specific constellation. (1987, p.20). In a coherent way to the mentioned above, Kuhn will draw the concept of normal science mentioning: (...) 'normal science' it means the research firmly based on an or more last scientific accomplishments. Those accomplishments are recognized for some time by a specific scientific community as providing the foundations for his/her subsequent practice. (1987, p.29) It is noticed that, even without mentioning paradigm, Kuhn he/she leaves evident that the normal science is characterized as backdrop for that determined paradigm. Relating normal science and paradigm is noticed that, all of the established predicates to the paradigm concept, pointed for several authors, besides Kuhn, establish the mortar among those two concepts. 2 Alves translates that relationship between normal science and paradigm, pointing that the normal science exists, therefore, under the patronage of the paradigm." (1981, p.191). THE same author still complements appearing that established the paradigm, automatically it is established denominated her/it normal science (1987, p.190). Here, as one of the marks of that rereading, we can perfectly use the term ingeniousness in the construction of those statements done by Kuhn. It is noticed the perfect syntony between the concepts and the form for the which they are completed. The concept then of paradigm it is fit in perfectly as the scenery of that rereading. IV. NEXT LINES: BEGINNING THE PERSPECTIVE TECHNIQUE Established the paradigm and his/her respective normal science, soon he/she settles down the ideary of manuals, rules and theories together. Kuhn will define rule as "established point of view" or "previous conception" (1987, p.62). In the same way that the normal science has the "patronage" of the paradigm, the rules "flow of the paradigm" (KUHN, 1987, p.66). In a more abstract way and without the logic of the established paradigm to flee for the scientific community, Kuhn also points that I fail of rules are inside resolved with search for new rules of the same paradigm, differentiating of the "jigsaw puzzle" concept, that it will be discussed further on (1987, p.85). However, the author makes clear that the existence of a paradigm is not conditioned to the existence of a group of rules (1987, p.69). Therefore, it is ended that such rules are built in agreement with the establishment of the paradigm. Such a movement is evident when he/she combines what Kuhn brings in relation to the theories. For the author: (...) the process of learning of a theory depends on the study of the applications, being included the practice there in the resolution of problems, be with pencil and paper, be with laboratory instruments. (1987, p.71) Established rules and theories starting from a normal science, inside of the logic of a paradigm, Kuhn mentions the importance of the manuals. For the author the manuals will have the function of perpetuating the normal science (1987, p.175). Those manuals for his/her time have as characteristics: The manual suggests that the scientists try to accomplish, from the first scientific enterprises, the objectives present matters in the current paradigms. In a process frequently compared to the addition of bricks to a construction, the scientists joined one to a the facts, concepts, laws or theories to the proportionate flow of information for the contemporary scientific manual. (KUHN, 1987, p.178). Therefore, those manuals, according to Kuhn "(...) they serve as base for a new tradition of science normal"(1987, p.183). V. NEXT LINES: DEEPENING THE PERSPECTIVES Kuhn brings us the anomaly concept. Initially he points anomaly as that for which the paradigm was not prepared

3 (1987, p.84). THE author still appears that, as larger the inclusion and repercussion of the paradigm, larger the probability of anomalies appear and that movement is inversely proportional, in other words, as larger the anomaly detected in the paradigm, adult is the impact that she can generate in this (1987, p.131). Alves corroborates with that line appearing: The science doesn't progress when the models are confirmed by the investigation, but when certain anomalies force the scientists to question them. (1981, p.65) Beforehand it is stood out that, according to Kuhn, the anomaly cannot be considered as an obstacle example of the paradigm (1987, p.107). Those anomalies will drive the change in the paradigm (KUHN, 1987, p.92). the anomaly will not appear in the pillars of sustentation of the normal science and, yes, in that scenery architectural servant and characterized as paradigm. Therefore we concluded that, the anomaly is more in the abstract field than the critic based to theories, rules or manuals. Kunh mentions: If the conscience of the anomaly plays a part in the emergency of new types of phenomena, nobody should be surprised with the fact that a conscience similar, although deeper, be a prerequisite for all of the changes of acceptable theories. (1987, p.94) No necessarily to every anomaly that appears, consequently we will have a crisis or new paradigm (KUHN, 1987, p.231) The verification or "discovery" of an anomaly carts a series of vocabularies and techniques that space going away of what consists in the manuals of the paradigm, bringing a refinement in the proportionate scenery for that paradigm (KUHN,1987, p.91). In that point, in that concept that we characterized as a primary concept, it can appear other two concepts of addition importance to understand the logic proposed by Kuhn. They are the problem concepts and jigsaw puzzle that, for his/her time, they resulted in the one that the author mentions as crisis. We will understand as problems the objections, some times considered as anomaly, other times no, that the paradigm lives and that for his/her time that strategic and simple movement gets to soften him/it, to solve him/it or to extirpate him/it. Different than Kuhn appears as jigsaw puzzle. For such concept, Kuhn begins his/her characterization pointing that jigsaw puzzle can be framed as a "category peculiar of problems that you/they are to test our ingeniousness or ability in the resolution of problems." (1987, p.59). In if treating of the term to "test", Kuhn leaves clear in mentioning that the scientist doesn't become a paradigm "testator" when working with jigsaw puzzles and their possible solutions (1987, p. 184). Kuhn still points that "Para to be classified as jigsaw puzzles, a problem is not enough to possess an insured solution" (1987, p.61). No matter how simple they are those definitions got to notice the established difference between problems and jigsaw puzzles. They are noticed that the problems are inside than Kuhn appears as jigsaw puzzles or they still can the problems, in agreement with their magnitudes, they be considered as jigsaw puzzles. Another preponderant factor is not to understand that a group of jigsaw puzzles takes to an anomaly, as it points Feyerabend (1971, p.256). That combination between jigsaw puzzles and anomalies will bring us the crisis concept. Before we establish the concepts and definitions for which Kuhn characterizes as crisis, it is worth to emphasize that the same will be precursory of a new paradigm and, for such a movement, Kuhn will denominate her/it as revolution. However, as it had already been said, that cyclical movement doesn't have divisor of waters, it is not characterized as tight, soon that new paradigm emerges in the own crisis movement, even if in an embryonic way (KUHN, p.117). That anomaly, embryonic of the new paradigm or stillborn for the own movement authoritarian and strategic of the effective paradigm, it can evidence certain generalizations in the paradigm, especially in the common science, legitimating the crisis process. However, to transform in crisis in agreement with the statements of Kuhn, that anomaly has to confront with the whole proportionate architectural scenery for the paradigm, reaching in a direct way the pillars of sustentation of the normal science (rules, theories and manuals) besides the own normal science. We still have the probability of a constant anomaly not to take the paradigm to the crisis (KUHN, 1987, p.112). When confronting anomaly and paradigm, the scientist he/she starts to see the paradigm in a different way, being one of the factors legitimators that had been mentioned above. For such, Kuhn mentions that "Confronted with anomalies or crises, the scientists take a different attitude regarding the existent paradigms" (1987, p.122). In relation to the crisis theorizing, for Feyerabend, the crisis is pluralist in the sense of involving multiples factors and theories (1971, p.248). When mentioning Kuhn, Feyerabend he/she mentions that the crisis announces herself by itself (1971, p.256). That die is fundamentally important because, it shows that the crisis is part of that cyclical movement proposed by Kuhn, being characterized by Feyerabend as a moment of appearance of theories in which reduction of difficulties is sought, being entrance door for which Kuhn appears as revolution (1971, p.248-9). Corroborating with that line, Marcondes will mention that the crisis periods are terrestrial fertile for the thought possibilities (In: BRANDÃO, 2002, p.28). Neves will characterize crisis as the moment in that that model non more works (2002, p.49). Marcondes will appear: A crisis of paradigms is characterized as well as a conceptual change, or a change of world vision, consequence of a dissatisfaction with the models previously predominant of explanation. (In: BRANDÃO, 2002, p.15) In what he/she concerns the combination among the pointed for Neves and Marcondes, we noticed that of the crisis fruits of internal conditions appear, starting from a reply of the architectural scenery proposed by the paradigm; 3

4 and external, front to the changes in the society. Own Marcondes, referenced in Kuhn, emphasizes those two aspects (In BRANDÃO, 2002, p.16). Attributing a fundamental character to the crisis concept, Plastino when mentioning "crisis", appears: It is broken the scientific community's homogeneity then and a debate is established that will end for the establishment of a new paradigm and for the reestablishment of the homogeneity around him. (2002, p.31) Kuhn for his/her time, opens their discussions on crisis pointing that "THE meaning of the crises consists exactly of the fact that you/they indicate that it is arrived the occasion to renew the instruments." (1987, p.105). The author still mentions that "All of the crises begin with the obscuration of a paradigm and the consequent relaxation of the rules that guide the normal research" (KUHN, 1987, p.115). Feyerabend will appear that: Crises are obstacles; confusion periods that should be outdated as quickly as possible and that should not extend unnecessarily. (1971, p.248) Those crises will end when, according to Kuhn: the) the own paradigm to get to soften her and consequently to solve her; b) when there is a resistance front inside to the attempts of reorganization of the crisis of the same paradigm; c) appearance of a new paradigm (KUHN, 1987, p.115). Para the last, Kuhn will use the term revolution. VI. FINAL LINES AND COLORS: THE REVOLUTION Before we point the characterizations and concepts of the term revolution, closing intones that rereading, he/she becomes important to stand out that according to Feyerabend between the crisis and the revolution, independent of the items mentioned above as "finalists of the crisis", an evaluation period exists (1971, p.248). Aligned the that citation, Kuhn mentions that the transition of a paradigm for another cannot be characterized as mere "accumulation" (1987, p.116). THE author mentions that the transition of a paradigm for other is characterized as a revolution (1987, p.122). That new paradigm should be capable to guide and to structure the whole work of a scientific community (KUHN, 1987, p.42), no at random, such a movement is considered as revolution. Evidently that the conflict among paradigms generates a conflict among different "schools", each one with his/her characteristic. That conflict among the "old" and "new" creates a new order (KUHN, 1987, p.130-1). this way, paradigms are not able to and they won't compete amongst themselves. The natural misunderstanding among different visions happens in the moments of crisis (KUHN, 1987, p.187). it is Noticed that Kuhn brings to the discussion the all is relevant to the paradigm change in what is concerned the change in the proportionate architectural scenery for this. For Kuhn, revolution can be defined as: (...) they are denominated of scientific revolutions the extraordinary episodes us which it happens that 4 alteration of professional commitments. The scientific revolutions are the disintegrating complements of the tradition which the activity of the normal science is linked. (1987, p.25) It is mentions still: (...) we considered scientific revolutions those development episodes no cumulative, us which an older paradigm is total or partially substituted by a new one, incompatible with the previous. (1987, p.125) Marcondes will point that just the changes of more radical paradigms can generate a scientific revolution (In: BRANDÃO, 2002, p.15). Relating to the revolution concept proposed by Kuhn, we can point Alves when he/she mentions: Frequently, the scientists are forced to recognize that the things are totally different from that that you/they thought. There they happen the great revolutions in the science. This would not happen if the knowledge went direct vision of the Real. (1981, p.59) During that revolution movement, of substitution or foundry of a paradigm for other, scientists start to visualize some until then points no seen formerly. For Kuhn, the period powder-revolution forces the scientist to see the world in a different way (1987, p.145). References ALVES, Rubem. Filosofia da Ciência: introdução ao jogo e suas regras. São Paulo: Brasiliense, DAYRELL, Eduardo. Mudar de paradigma. Available in: < I access in: 11/07/2016. Published in: 13/08/2008. FEYERABEND, Paul. Problemas da Microfísica. IN: Nagel, Levi, Morgenbesser, Ernest, Isaac e Sidney (orgs.). Filosofia da Ciência, São Paulo, Editora Cultrix, KUHN, Thomas S. Estrutura das revoluções científicas. 2.ed. São Paulo: Perspectiva, 1987 (Debates, 115). MARCONDES, Danilo. A crise de paradigmas e o surgimento da Modernidade. In: BRANDÃO, Zaia (org.). A crise dos paradigmas e a educação. 8.ed. São Paulo: Cortez, MASTERMAN, Margaret. A natureza do paradigma, In: LAKATOS, Imre e MUSGRAVE, Alan (orgs.). A crítica e o desenvolvimento do conhecimento: quarto volume das atas do Colóquio Internacional sobre Filosofia da Ciência, Londres, São Paulo: Cultrix, NEVES, Maria Apparecida C. Mamede. A crise dos paradigmas em Educação na óptica da Pscicologia. In: BRANDÃO, Zaia (org.). A crise dos paradigmas e a educação. 8.ed. São Paulo: Cortez, PLASTINO, Carlos Alberto. A crise dos paradigmas e a crise do conceito de paradigma. In: BRANDÃO, Zaia (org.). A crise dos paradigmas e a educação. 8.ed. São Paulo: Cortez, 2002.

5 SWERDLOW, N.M. Thomas S. Kuhn : A Biographical Memoir. National Academy of Sciences,

Lecture 3 Kuhn s Methodology

Lecture 3 Kuhn s Methodology We now briefly look at the views of Thomas S. Kuhn whose magnum opus, The Structure of Scientific Revolutions (1962), constitutes a turning point in the twentiethcentury philosophy