Vous êtes sur la page 1sur 16

CHAPTER 12

The Resolution
of Revolutions

1. How do the proponents of a


competing paradigm convert the
entire profession or the relevant
subgroup to their way of seeing
science and the world?
2. What causes a group to abandon
one tradition of normal research in
favor of another?
3. What is the process by which a new
candidate for paradigm replaces its
predecessor?

Scientific revolutions come about when


one paradigm displaces another after a
period of paradigm-testing that occurs:
1. only after persistent failure to solve a
noteworthy puzzle has given rise to crisis.
2. as part of the competition between two rival
paradigms for the allegiance of the scientific
community.

Example of a scientific
revolution:
The disproving of spontaneous generation:

Francesco Redis experiment c. 1688 proving that maggots


are not spontaneously produced in rotten meat.

Example of a scientific
revolution:
The disproving of spontaneous generation:

Louis Pasteurs experiment c.1861.

The process of paradigm-testing


parallels two popular philosophical
theories about the verification of
scientific theories.
1. Theory-testing
through
probabilistic verification.
2. Theory-testing
through
falsification (Karl Popper) A
theory must be rejected when outcomes
predicted by the theory are negative.
(Kuhn doubts that falsifying experiences exist.

If any and every failure to fit were ground for theory


rejection, all theories ought to be rejected at all times. )

Example of theory tested by


probabilistic verification:

Geocentric vs Heliocentric model of the solar


system
Problems
encountered by the
geocentric theory

Ptolemys
constructions in
preservation of the
theory

Variation in the
brightness of Venus,
Mars and Jupiter
Retrograde motion of
the planets

The eccentric
The epicycle
The equant

The heliocentric theory made more sense to


the scientists that opposed the geocentric
theory because it did not need the concept
of eccenters, epicycles and equants to

An example of competing
paradigms:

Competing theories of cholera


(The MIASMA Theory vs The GERM Theory)

MIASMA theory one prominent supporter is Dr. William Farr


- cholera caused by bad air, arising from
decayed organic matter (miasmata) [from
riverbanks]
- Stressed eradication of disease through
preventive cleansing and scouring
- His calculations in 1852 seemed to support
his theory that closer proximity to riverbanks
show increased infection rates

Competing theories of cholera


(The MIASMA Theory vs The GERM Theory)
GERM theory alternative theory
supported by John Snow
- Held that cholera is caused by a
germ cell which, during his time
is not yet identified
- Snows germ theory was
deemed peculiar by John Simon,
head medical officer of London

Farrs acceptance of the Germ


Theory of Cholera
In 1854, Farr was appointed member of the Scientific
Committee for Scientific Enquiries in Relation to the Cholera
Epidemic of 1854. Given his support of the miasma theory,
this platform lead to conflicts with John Snow.
By 1866, eight years after the death of John Snow, medical
opinion had changed to support the germ theory of cholera
and its water-borne transmission. Farr used death rates to
justify his conclusions with the help of statistics, he publicly
acknowledged that water was the most important means of
transmission, not miasmata as previously stated.
Farr died in 1883 and during that year Robert Koch was able
to discover the causative agent of cholera which is Vibrio
cholerae.

It makes little sense to suggest that


verification is establishing the
agreement of fact with theory.
It makes better sense to ask which of
two competing theories fits the facts
better.

Although a generation is sometimes required to


effect a paradigm change, scientific
communities have again and again been
converted to new paradigms.
1. Max Planck: A new scientific truth does not
triumph by convincing its opponents and making
them see the light, but rather because its
opponents eventually die, and a new generation
grow up that is familiar with it.
2. But Kuhn argues that Planck's famous remark
overstates the case.
One reason: Some scientists, particularly the older
and more experienced ones, may resist indefinitely,
but most can be reached in one way or another.

3. Conversions occur not despite the fact


that scientists are human but because
they are.
4. How are scientists converted? How is
conversion induced and how resisted?
a.Individual scientists embrace a new paradigm
for all sorts of reasons and usually for several
at once.
b.The focus of these questions should not be on
the individual scientist but with the sort of
community that always sooner or later reforms as a single group.
c.The community recognizes that a new
paradigm displays a quantitative precision
strikingly better than its older competitor.

But paradigm debates are not about


relative problem-solving ability.
Rather the issue is which paradigm
should in the future guide research
on problems many of which neither
competitor can yet claim to resolve
completely
The new paradigm is said to be neater,
more suitable, simpler, or more elegant

What is the process by which a new


candidate for paradigm replaces its
predecessor?
1.At the start, a new candidate for paradigm may
have few supporters (and the motives of the
supporters may be suspect).
2.If the supporters are competent, they will
a. improve the paradigm
b. explore its possibilities
c. and show what it would be like to belong to the
community guided by it.
3. More scientists, convinced of the new views
fruitfulness, will adopt the new mode of practicing
normal science (until only a few elderly hold-outs
will remain)

Conclusion
Scientific revolutions cause a
paradigm shift in which the older
paradigm is replaced by a new
paradigm.
This shift can either be rapid or
gradual, and usually involves the
willingness of competing paradigm
believers to accept one over the other.