Thomas Kuhn`s Pradigm theory - Essay Example

?Key words: paradigm, incommensurability, normal science, digital, surveying and mapping This paper describes Thomas Kuhn’s Paradigm theory and the existence of paradigm shifts in scientific disciplines, resulting from technological and theoretical advancements. Thomas Kuhn introduced the concept of incommensurability and paradigm changes in the philosophy of science. A paradigm is described as a pattern or model, and a paradigm shift occurs when there are changes in the old paradigm, bringing in a new paradigm. Kuhn states that the evolution of paradigms in scientific disciplines occurs in patterns or cycles, beginning with a prescience period, followed by a period of crisis, then a scientific revolution and then the development of a normal science. This is again followed by a new crisis and a new revolution, leading to a new normal science in the next cycle. In spite of their validity in explaining the history of science, Kuhn’ ideas met a lot of criticisms. This paper attempts to analyse paradigm shifts in the development of surveying and mapping techniques, and the replacement of traditional methods with digital methods of surveying and mapping. The characteristics of paradigm in digital surveying and mapping are introduced and thus, an attempt is made at explaining the development of digital surveying and mapping techniques in light of Kuhn’s paradigm theory and paradigm shifts. 1. Thomas Kuhn’s Key ideas The failure of foundationalism was the development of Weltanschauung views of Thomas Kuhn and some philosophers. His book, The Structure of Scientific Revolution, published in 1962, is the most cited book in the twentieth century. Thomas Kuhn introduced incommensurability, normal science and paradigm changes to the philosophy of science in this book. Incommensurability is used to describe conditions when one is not able to judge and compare the same standards, or have no common standard of measurement (Oxford Online Dictionary). This word originated in the 16th century, from the Latin word ‘incommensurabilis’, in a mathematical sense. According to Brown (2002), both Thomas Kuhn and Paul Feyerabend, introduced incommensurability in the context of mathematics. For instance, in the Pythagoreans theory, the diagonal of a square with magnitude 1 is v2. However, this meaning of the irrational number cannot be expressed exactly, which holds true. Incommensurability, thus, describes the inability to compare unrelated concepts. Paradigm is defined as a typical example, pattern, or model of something (Oxford Online Dictionary 2011), which can also be expressed as a global view of a theory and methodology of a particular scientific topic. This phrase originated in the late 15th century via the Greek word ‘paradeigma’. Thomas Kuhn claimed that science undergoes a paradigm shift, which is discontinuous. The paradigm shift describes a change in basic assumption in science. Paradigm shift has lead scientists to new approaches in understanding something that was never thought before, and therefore, must not be fully, but to account for subjective perspectives. Thomas Kuhn demonstrated that there are three stages in science, viz. prescience, followed by normal science, and then revolutionary science. This progression of stages occurs when “normal scientists” who are practising “normal science” will develop a particular paradigm through experimentation and study, and this paradigm will be challenged by new observations obtained through further experimentations that falsify the current paradigm. When an overwhelming amount of evidence against the existing paradigm accumulates, a state of crisis begins. Therefore, a new paradigm will have to be developed that overrides the problems and limitations of the pre-existing paradigm in order to solve the state of crisis. This “crisis is resolved when an entirely new paradigm emerges and attracts the allegiance of more and more scientists until eventually the original, problem-ridden paradigm is abandoned” (Chalmers 1999). The change that results is called a scientific revolution, and it gives rise to a new normal science that continues per se until a new state of crisis begins because of shortcomings in the current paradigm, setting the stage for another scientific revolution and the introduction of another paradigm. Therefore, there is a continuous progression of paradigm shifts constituting the history of science. Sankey (2002) mentioned that, there are four statements that form the basis of Kuhn’s claim about science. The first is that paradigm change causes change in both concepts and vocabulary that scientists have used. Secondly, the perceptual experience of scientists is influenced by the paradigms accepted. Thirdly, the effect in paradigm is large as it changes the way scientists practice research. Lastly, it is a change in the standards of methodology from one paradigm to the other. Kuhn has claimed that competing paradigms are incommensurable. According to Kuhn, an epistemological paradigm shift is termed as scientific revolution. When this occurs, scientists face anomalies, which are unexplainable and lead to problems. In early stages of the science revolution, scientists encounter problems such as direct comparison is impossible for different paradigms. Furthermore, due to the paradigm dependence of evaluating standards, there is no ground to apply the neutral standards, therefore conflicts arise (Sankey 2002). Neutrality is not included in incommensurability, as it is a measure. If shared observation and neutral standards does not exist, there seemed to be no choice between competing paradigms. This situation became worse when the scientists were unable to compare views. There are three forms of paradigmatic incommensurability (Jackson et al. 2009). One is the ‘conceptual incommensurability’, which is involved in the shift in linguistic elements of scientific theories. The second is the ‘observational incommensurability which deals with varying assumptions about the nature of evidence relating to evaluation theories, which results in rejecting the theory. Lastly, is the ‘methodological incommensurability’, which involves the very method of scientific investigations. For example, in this case for Galileo where his opponents had rejected many of his theories, including the truth-status of Copernican and Ptolemaic models of the solar system. Thomas Kuhn has used the famous duck-rabbit image, as shown in the figure 1, to demonstrate that one could see the same information in a totally different way. Taking the duck-rabbit image as an example, some individuals may see the figure as a duck, while some may see it as a rabbit. This situation was used by Kuhn as part of his argument on paradigms and paradigm shifts. This can be seen in the Gestalt psychology (Bird 2000). Also, Bird has demonstrated that the Necker tube can be used as well to demonstrate different points of view of others. Figure 1: Duck rabbit ambiguous figure (Dietze 2011) 2. The fundamental definition of paradigm Paradigm is first proposed by Thomas Kuhn, a famous American to illustrate the historical evolution of scientific development. This was illustrated through the method of history, from the dynamic perspective of the mechanisms and laws of scientific development. He presented his model of scientific development in his book "Structure of Scientific Revolutions" in 1962. Kuhn believes that science is general science and the scientific revolution by conventional alternating each other, constantly updated for the new and old paradigms. Paradigm is a scientific maturity. Pre-scientific period, scholars are in a mess, because the paradigm has not been discovered. There is the paradigm, a former science into science to normal science period. There is no paradigm, there is no standard to judge whether a particular field has become a science. The development of science, whether conventional scientific period or scientific revolution period, are closely linked with the paradigm. Period of normal science is based on the paradigm of the study period is extended under the guidance of the paradigm of knowledge of the facts, the facts and the paradigm is expected to improve the match between the degree of refining is the process of paradigm. Scientific revolution is the paradigm shift, the replacement period, is another new paradigm to replace the old paradigm of the period. Kuhn thought paradigm is not only the epistemological paradigm of knowledge, but also a social form of knowledge, the scientific community's beliefs and behaviour. Therefore, the paradigm guides the whole scientific community of the collective research agenda for scientific research and operational guidelines. 3. The forming and the basic characteristics of paradigm of the digital surveying and mapping 3.1 The forming and the influencing of paradigm of the digital surveying and mapping According to Dorling and Fairbairn (1997, 6), the oldest surviving man-made maps dated back to 3500 BC, excluding ‘proto-cartographic’ appearances in some prehistoric rock art. Afterward, surveying and mapping was influenced by the impact of human discovery and invention; in particular, technology and science played vital roles in mapmaking. Mapping of the earth and navigation was largely based on astronomical studies using stars and planets as guides. Compasses were used for angle measurements and directions in surveying and cartography. This period can be called “pre-science”, based on Kuhn’s theory. This prescience era had its own shortcomings and led to “crises” due to technical limitations and insufficiency of instruments for accurate mapping and surveying of large landscapes. The period of crisis is marked with debates and disharmony in the scientific community and identification of anomalies in the current paradigm and theories. The technological developments that followed gave rise to “scientific revolutions” and the birth of “normal science”, wherein, compasses were replaced by transits, theodolites and total stations for angle measurements and rods and chains were replaced by measuring tapes and EDMs (Vannozzi 2011). This was the first paradigm shift. New requirements, new crises and new revolutions in the surveying and mapping field gave rise to a new normal science, a new paradigm. With the arrival of computer science in the 1950s, digital surveying and mapping came into being. Scientists in surveying and mapping began to introduce applications of computer technology into geodetic surveying, photogrammetric mapping and cartography and other surveying fields. The integration of computer technology in the surveying industry has extremely improved the efficiency in mapping. For instance, the development of computer aided mapping systems has lead to consideration for replacement of the traditional surveying and mapping systems, particularly the 1960's and 1970's. Hence, this approach offered an opportunity to new technology in the surveying and mapping field, which then piloted the initiation in digital surveying and mapping technology. In the 1970's, owing to evolvement and enhancement of computing software and hardware devices, databases were designed for large storage of data. These databases are capable of data input, map data storage, data queries, data retrieval and display of mapping data according to user’s requirement. All these functions are integrated in a system. Due to the development of mapping databases, digital mapping was available in 1980s. Hence, a new paradigm and a “new normal science” was formed in the 1970s to 1980s. Since the early 1980's to 1990's, due to technical limitations, financial problems and lengthy process of database development for mapping, the expansion of the database was restricted. This marked another era of crisis and scientific revolutions, fitting in with Kuhn’s theory. In the mid-1990s, with the advancement of information technology, the concept of social mapping, the "spatial data infrastructure" was proposed. Spatial data infrastructure contains the following four parts: basic data collection, data exchange network system, regulations and standards, and institutional systems. At present, data collection depends on total-station surveying instruments, digital levelling devices, GPS receivers, NRTK, and satellite images. It is well know that GPS can provide users not to exceed 10 millimetres in latitude, longitude and height and surveyors can fetch excessively accurate data of three-dimension because GPS receivers receive and decode these satellites’ signals (Clarke 1995, 9). More than 97.50 percentage of NRTK observation accuracy did not exceed 5 centimetres in three-dimensional elements when the surveyor used the NRTK services to achieve positioning data (Aponte et al. 2009, 18). Spatial data infrastructure concepts accelerated to break the limitation of the traditional mapping, and also in assisting mapping of public infrastructure. According to Tang and Lam, “Technological improvement in spatial data gathering and presentation has made a shift of paradigm on our working procedure and final products” (2001, 67). Thus, spatial data technology brought in a new paradigm in surveying and mapping, giving rise to a paradigm shift. As Balodimos et al write, The abolition of complex techniques on one hand, as well as the significant involvement in the geospatial data handling on the other, has led to a redefined field of activities known as Geo-Information or Geomatics. This has been proposed as the new paradigm for Surveying Engineering. The application of spatial data technology plays an indispensible role in digital mapping technology after the 21st century. This, known as "virtual community" or "Digital Earth" concept, evolved from digital surveying and mapping technology. This is part of the new paradigm. Furthermore, as Peterson (2005, 14) notes, the number of internet map users increased gradually and slightly from 1995 to 1998, whereas, the growth of the internet map user rose sharply between 1998 and 2002, touching just over 20 million. It is clear that digital maps will generally dominate in human society. At this phase requires high-resolution Earth satellite imagery, digital maps, social and demographic statistics, financial economy and other information integration. The integration of data helps to solve natural disasters at a global scale. Meanwhile, making the world together to respond to challenges of natural and social environment, users can produce information of problematic sites immediately. An example of use of this digital mapping information can be seen in the recent earthquake that occurred in Japan. Satellite imageries have captured the temporal changes before and after the quake, reflecting the impact and damages from the quake. In addition to these digital maps could produce plenty of thematic or special purpose maps, which are satisfied with the wide range of people needing, geological map play the vital role in environment, energy, minerals, water, and climate protection (Reid 2007, 36). It is a field revolution and the ultimate goal of digital surveying and mapping paradigm, as well as gives brand new significance to surveying and mapping, which marks the beginning of information age of surveying and mapping. 3.2 Utility of Kuhn’s ideas in understanding the paradigm shift in surveying and mapping The field of mapping and surveying has witnessed multiple paradigm shifts throughout history, and the pattern of change fits correctly with Kuhn’s paradigm theory. Kuhn’s theory of paradigms and paradigm shifts is helpful in understanding the changes and revolutions that occur in science and technology, culminating in better and improved theories each time a paradigm shift occurs. Using Kuhn’s theory, the changes and evolution in the field of surveying engineering was discussed elaborately in the previous section. It can be stated that Kuhn’s theory proves to be very useful in evaluating the pattern through which science develops, which would otherwise have been inconspicuous. The shift from prescience to normal science and then to new normal science and so on is greatly reflected in how tools and techniques in surveying engineering evolved through time. 3.3 Critical evaluation of Kuhn’s theory Kuhn’s theory of paradigms met with a number of criticisms. Of those, the three most important ones are: what is the definition of paradigm, is the description of scientific change correct as given by Kuhn, and how can paradigms be evaluated (Vasquez 1998, p. 19). “Paradigm” is an ambiguous word and can be implied in a variety of ways. Kuhn himself used the concept of paradigm in twenty-one different ways (as cited in Vasquez). Kuhn clarified his stance on the definition of paradigm in the next edition of his publication, yet the criticism continues. In a broader sense, the word paradigm when used to refer to a global view of a theory and methodology of a particular scientific topic, is enough to encompass the paradigm theory. The fact that through a paradigm shift, the older paradigm is replaced with the newer one may not be exactly true. The new paradigm builds on the old paradigm and answers questions that the older paradigm could not. Therefore, the older paradigm has a place of its own and cannot be totally discarded. Scientific change occurs when the scientific community accepts the new paradigm and wilfully incorporates it into the existing system. This gives rise to new discoveries and paves way for technological and theoretical advancements. The period of crisis is perhaps the most difficult period, when resistance to change in pre-existing theories is experienced. 5.0 Conclusion Kuhn’s theory of paradigms and paradigm shifts greatly explains the development of science and the replacement of old theories with new ones throughout scientific history. This theory helps in evaluating scientific developments through the passage of time. The paradigm of digital surveying and mapping technology is gradually replacing the old paradigm of the traditional methods of surveying and mapping technology. It also injects a new meaning in surveying and mapping, which is forming the new surveying and mapping era in the information age. The technological advancements in the surveying engineering field were explained based on Kuhn’s theory of paradigms in this paper. References Aponte, J., X. Meng, T. Moore, C. Hill, and M. Bubidge. 2009. Wireless delivery: Assessing Network RTK. GPS World. 20 (2): 14-27. Balodimos, D.D., M. Kavouras, K. Koutsopoulos, G. Panagiotou and T. Sellis. n.d. ‘Redefining postgraduate geoinformation studies- Experiences from the new geoinformatics programme at NTUA- Greece’. National Technical University of Athens, Greece. http://www.ntua.gr/ontogeo/publications/HK2000-Kavouras-paper.pdf. (accessed August 21, 2011) Bird, A. 2000.Thomas Kuhn. New Jersey: Princeton University Press. Brown, J.R. 2002.Review Thomas Kuhn. British journal for the philosophy of science 53 (1): 143-149. http://bjps.oxfordjournals.org.dbgw.lis.curtin.edu.au/content/53/1/143 (accessed August 19, 2011) Chalmers, A.F. 1999. What Is This Thing Called Science, 3rd edition, Indianapolis, Hackett Publishing Company Inc. Clarke, K.C. 2nded. 1995. Analytical and computer cartography.Englewood Cliffs: Prentice-Hall. Dietze, E.V. 2011.Theories as Structure Wholes-Thomas Kuhn’s Paradigm Theory. Dorling, D., and D. Fairbairn. 1997. Mapping: Ways of represent the world. Harlow: Addison Wesly Longman. Jackson, P.T., and D.H. Nexon. 2009. Paradigmatic Faults in International-Relations Theory. International Studies Quarterly 53 (4): 907-930. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111./j.1468-2478.2009.00562.x(accessed August 22, 2011) Oxford Online Dictionary. 2011. Oxford Press. http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/view/entry/m_en_gb0405240#m_en_gb0405240.007 (accessed August 20, 2011) Peterson, M.P. ed. 2005.Maps and the Internet. Oxford: Elsevier Reid, R.L. 2007. Group aims to post global geological data on the web. Civil Engineering 77 (5): 36-37. EBSCOhost. (accessed August 18, 2011) Sankey, H. 2002. The Structure of Scientific Revolutions by Thomas S. Kuhn.Australian and New Zealand Journal of Psychiatry 36 (6): 821-824. http://dx.doi.org/10.1046/j.1440-1614.2002.t01-5-01102a.x. (accessed August 25, 2011) Tang, C., and S. Lam. 2001. Effects of Globalization on surveying and mapping profession. Journal of Geospatial Engineering 3(1): 67-74. http://www.lsgi.polyu.edu.hk/sTAFF/zl.li/vol_3_1/07_conrad.pdf. (accessed August 25, 2011) Vannozzi, A.R. 2011. ‘Perspectives on the future of the surveying profession’. University of Newhampshire, Newhampshire. http://www.surveysummit.com/2011-proceedings/files/perspectives-future-surveying-profession.pdf. (accessed August 21, 2011) Vasquez, J.A. 1998. The power of power politics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. http://catdir.loc.gov/catdir/samples/cam032/98020166.pdf. (accessed August 21, 2011) Read More