The Circle of Intellectuals Kuhns Concept of Paradigms - Essay Example

?Philosophy of Science “Philosophy of science is concerned with the assumptions, foundations methods and implications of science.” (Wikipedia) Many scientist propounded different views on philosophy of science. Among them are Wesley Salmon’s Theory of Causation, Lakatos’s “Science and pseudoscience,” etc. While discussing the philosophy of science two major names come before our vision. First is Kuhn and another is Popper. Thomas Kuhn was an American philosopher of science who forged a quite open, fundamental and democratic approach to science. He was a scholar and rebelled against the scientific establishment. Karl Popper on the other hand was the totalitarian and unadventurous proponent of positivism. Karl and Popper were the contemporaries and criticized each other’s work. The comparison on the philosophies of Kuhn and Popper following attributes are taken into consideration: 1. Differentiation between science and non science Popper opined that science is a method of trial and error. It is a method of assumption and refusal. Science is always accompanied by the group of scholars who check and criticize each other. The foundation of science is its rationality. The openness to criticism should be converted into the willingness of scientists to falsify their theory. Kuhn on the other hand differentiated science and non science through paradigms. Science takes place where there is a major paradigm and non science appears due to lack of dominant paradigm. Thus Kuhn talks about infantile science without a dominant paradigm and a normal science or matured science with a dominant paradigm. He took paradigm as a basic accomplishment which includes both theory and a very good application to the results of observations and experiments. It is very important to keep in mind that though Kuhn differentiated between science and non science through paradigms his differentiation was never based on objectivity. Karl Popper was against the confinement of science within faith and doctrine. Science follows the methods faithfully and these methods are objective. For Popper criticism is a necessary aspect for the scientific method of objectivity. The foundation of scientific rationality lies on the modernist project of reason, doubt, and criticism. To build this rationality science must be open to criticism and adapt critical attitude. Scientific knowledge according to him is snowballing. It is because of the positive approach of the scientists to go through falsification and they should be open to the criticism. According to Kuhn preconception and resistance seem to be the rule rather than the exception. He strongly believes that dogma is an essential part in mature science as the scientific paradigm is an open-ended achievement. It is necessary for the scientists to be assertive in their beliefs in paradigm. Then only they can further ensue to the puzzle solving task. 2. Criticism, Dogmatism and Faith Criticism is mandatory to science according to Popper whereas dogma is mandatory in mature science. Popper believes that faith in science is important one and one should stick on to the scientific methods. Kuhn believes that faith should be in scientific paradigm. Popper opines strongly that objectivity in science lies in scientific method. This opinion made Popper to use the concept of provisional knowledge. Scientific methods are enough to evaluate the merits of scientific theories because, as mentioned above objectivity lies in scientific method. This scientific method is paradigmatic for Kuhn. Objectivity is only feasible within the paradigm. Kuhn says that this scientific method is not able to evaluate the merits of scientific theories in an objective manner because scientific paradigms occur through extra-scientific factors. Scientific Revolution v/s Scientific progress Popper thinks that scientific progress happens through falsification. After going through falsification, the theory either stands true, or it is taken for granted as a provisional knowledge, and if the theory proves to be wrong, it is discarded and it can be modified. Scientific knowledge in general is cumulative according to Popper. Unlike Popper Kuhn denies the scientific progress but believes in scientific revolution. The common developmental pattern of mature science according to him is an alteration from one paradigm to another and it is through scientific revolution and not scientific progress. Kuhn used the more comprehensive term “Scientific Revolution,” to explain the power exists in scientific knowledge Scientific Objectivity: Karl Popper says that Objectivity exists in the method of science. Scientific method is not bounded by subjective factors. Scientific objectivity can be spoiled by subjective factors according to Karl Popper. But Kuhn has completely denied scientific subjectivity in the notion of incommensurability. According to Kuhn scientific theory is influence by some extra scientific factors. The incommensurable paradigms govern science. Rationality of Science: Karl Popper views that science is rational and is open to criticism. It is open minded, flexible and ready to accept falsification. Kuhn has an opposite opinion. According to him science is not rational but it is dogmatic and intransigent. After discussing and comparing the two different approaches of Popper and Kuhn, I personally feel that Popper’s approach is more acceptable. Though Kuhn’s opinions got popularity in the circle of intellectuals Kuhn’s concept of paradigms is not able to reflect the way that scientist works. Rather Popper’s concept is better than that of Kuhn. Popper is aware of the limitations of human beings. Human beings are bound to do the mistake. That is why he suggests the provisional knowledge. It is not possible to get the Knowledge or Truth due to these limitations. Human being constantly learns from trial and error methods. That is why he suggests the theory of trial and error. We do not have Knowledge, it does not mean that we should stop thinking of it, on the other hand his theory tells to do our best to reach to the closest to the theory. Unless and until some better option comes along, the provisional method is valid. Read More