The Structure of Scientific Revolutions(part 1) This weeks reading - the first five chapters of Kuhns The Structure of Scientific

Revolutions - is rather expansive, and thus what follows is only a brief summarization of the key points in each chapter. Introduction: A role for History - Kuhn outlines his most fundamental philosophical belief, which is that a philosophy of science must necessarily refer to the way science has actually been practiced(and thus is subject to historical analysis). In his view, scientific practice can be divided into two kinds: normal research and paradigm shifts. Normal research is essentially dogmatic; predicated on the assumption that the scientific community knows what the world is like(5) and often suppresses fundamental novelties because they are necessarily subversive of its basic commitments" (5). Implicit to Kuhns discussion in this chapter is the notion that scientific practice is intrinsically rooted in the existence of a scientific community. It appears that Kuhn is not interested in the activity of individual scientists, but rather in the movement of the scientific community as a whole. The Route to Normal Science - this chapter continues in greater depth on the nature of normal science. Kuhn holds that normal science arises from and follows a paradigm, which is either the result of foundational research in a field or a paradigm shift. The latter is is like a revolution, in which the views of one party are dismantled and replaced by the views of another, and then normal science is resumed. A paradigm first comes about when observation is described theoretically by scientists and then accepted by the scientific community at large. Central to this chapter is Kuhns idea of a paradigms driving scientific practice, rather than the other way around. The Nature of Normal Science - filling in the finer details of normal science. Normal Science consists of extending and mending the current paradigm. Specifically, scientists can work on the determination of significant facts, the matching of the facts to the paradigm, or devising a superior articulation of the paradigm itself. Kuhn holds that to desert the paradigm is to cease practicing the science it defines(34). Normal Science as Puzzle Solving - this chapter seems to me the least compatible(so far) with conventional scientific thought. Kuhn argues that research which does not confirm the paradigm is generally viewed as a failure, studies which fail to find the expected are not usually not published, the intrinsic scientific worth of a research question is generally not considered when picking projects, but its answerability is, and that novelty is not sought in standard research. All of the above strike me as either gross distortions of a more subtle process or flat out wrong. The Priority of Paradigms - the paradigms of a scientific field which has become mature are obvious, Kuhn says. But the interpretations various scientists have of a paradigm may be different, and it is not always clear what the properties of a given paradigm are. Basically what Kuhn is trying to say in this chapter is that a paradigm may

mean different things for different people and different subfields, and that a revolution produced within one of these traditions will not necessarily extend to the others as well" (50).