Thomas Khun
Its key points are:
- What for Lakatos was a research program to Kuhn's paradigm.
- For Lakatos's research program is concerned with the method or methodology.
- For Kuhn there a more sociological and historical, beyond the method and methodology, is the paradigm: the model, how to watch or "look" things. It's like a position assumed by a community of scientists, who do not necessarily have to star in one space.
Science evolves under the following line:
prescience--->normal science--->crisis--->revolution--->science new normal
There is a prescience that is how scientific thinking evolves, it then appears normal science paradigm that comes after and that it is organized in a scientific community. Later abnormalities occur early or rebuttals to the paradigm, are internal anomalies
failure of application of techniques, usually a methodological flaw or scientific (human error). It usually happens that that paradigm has contradictions with the hitch with reality and therefore is in crisis. When this paradigm crisis gets out of the hands of scientists, means that they are incorrigible and undermines the foundations of the paradigm itself. This crisis is very productive, as are major changes and the paradigm can be replaced by another. At the time of crisis develops paradigm revolution process where production comes first really new. When the revolution comes assembling a macro perspective emerging paradigm or a new normal science, and the process begins again.
This circuit characterizes the process of evolution of science, how it develops knowledge in science.
For Kuhn are fundamental connections with reality method, and this method does not hold water when it loses the connection. When society separates thought and action, it means you are failing. This occurs with domination and loss of freedom. Sometimes practice is ahead of theory and a vacuum of interpretation of what is happening in society often tries to explain the new for the old account, rather than creating some new explanations.
- All paradigms have to give indications of what kind of methodology assumes. Each has its metodolgía paradigm.
- When crises come a paradigm, do not come for the first contradictions and refutations, but when it contradicts his foundation.
- The revolution is characterized by contradicting all the basics, you try "engrandarlos" for improvement.
- What is a new paradigm? When assuming the new form of it.
- The birth of the new paradigm, it is organized by dispersion: just the old paradigm, concerns ensue to find an initiative that is beginning to grow and to which others are signing.
Thomas Kuhn dkice that there is a second conception of scientific theories as complex structures, is an attempt to provide a theory of science that was more in concordance with the historical situation as he saw it.
Kuhn's conception predates the methodology of scientific research programs of Lakatos, because it took some of the results to their purposes.
The prescience is characterized by strongly disagree and debate essentially constant. A paradigm consists of the general theoretical assumptions, laws and techniques for application to take the members of a particular scientific community. Those working within a paradigm, practice what Kuhn called normal science. Normal science articulate and develop the paradigm in an attempt to explain and accommodate the behavior of some important aspects of the real world. By doing so inevitably experience difficulties and apparent falsifications will encounter. If difficulties are out of hand, developed a state of crisis, which is solved when there is an entirely new paradigm. Finally leaving the original paradigm, beset by problems. The discontinuous change is a scientific revolution. The new paradigm, full of promise then guide the new normal scientific activity until it hits serious problems and a new crisis appears followed by a new revolution.
Paradigms NORMAL AND SCIENCE:
A mature science is governed by a single paradigm. The paradigm establishes standards necessary to legitimize the work within science that governs. Coordinates and directs the activities of "problem solving". The feature that distinguishes science from non-science is the existence of a paradigm capable of supporting a normal science tradition. Much of modern sociology lacks a paradigm and therefore does not qualify as science.
Among paradigm components are explicitly stated laws and comparable to the theoretical core of a research program lakatoniano. Paradigms also include normal ways of applying the fundamental laws of the various types of situations and instruments and techniques required to make the paradigm laws relating to the real world. All paradigms contain some very general methodological requirements such as: "we must seriously try to combine the paradigm with nature" or "you have to deal with failed attempts to combine the paradigm with nature as serious problems."
It is considered that a failure in solving a problem is a scientific failure but a failure of the paradigm. The problems that resist being solved are considered as anomalies rather than as falsifications of a paradigm. Kuhn recognizes that all paradigms contain any anomaly, but rejects all streams of falsifiability.
CRISIS AND REVOLUTION
Be considered as an anomaly is particularly serious if it is judged that affects the very foundations of a paradigm. lA increases severity of a crisis when it appears the rival paradigm, it will be very different from the old and incompatible with it. The paradigm in which you are working will guide the way the scientist watching a particular aspect of the world.
Kuhn change accession linked by scientists from one paradigm to another alternative and incompatible with a "gestalt switch" or a "religious conversion." There is no purely logical argument that demonstrates the superiority of one paradigm over another and, therefore, drive to change to a rational scientific paradigm. A scientist's decision will depend on the priority given to such factors. The factors include things such as simplicity, connection with any pressing social need, the ability to solve a particular problem, etc..
A second reason that there is no lógimanete convincing demonstration of the superiority of one paradigm over another arises from the fact that supporters of rival paradigms subscribe different sets of rules, principles, etc.. judging by their own rules, the paradigm A may be considered superior to paradigm B, whereas if premises are used as paradigm B standards, the trial may be the opposite. The conclusion of an argument is persuasive only if one accepts its premises.
A scientific revolution corresponds to the abandonment of a paradigm and the adoption of a new one, not by an isolated scientist but by the scientific community as a whole.
It is necessary for normal science is largely uncritical. If all scientists criticize all parts of the framework in which they work all the time, not take out any detailed work. But if all scientists were and should remain normal scientists, a particular science would be trapped in one paradigm and never progress beyond it.
The revolution bring progress. All paradigms are inadequate to some extent by what refers to its layout with nature, when the lack of alignment is serious, the crisis unfolds, the revolutionary step of replacing the entire paradigm by another is essential for effective progress science.
Kuhn practiced relativism. The relativist denies that there is an ahistorical universal rationality criterion by which a theory can be judged better than another. What is considered better or worse with respect to scientific theories varies from one individual to another. The purpose of the pursuit of knowledge depend on what is important or valuable to the individual or the community in question. The superiority or not of one theory over another must be judged in relation to the relevant community standards, criteria usually vary with theoretical cultural context of the community. What is considered as a problem depends on the paradigm or community.
On the way to produce knowledge we have made progress since its inception focusing on the subject - object, for which we relied on the mere acquisition of the phenomenon (such as it is a mechanical inductivism reflects a mimesis of reality).
From the 80 began to overcome this kind of knowledge (the subject - object) and emerged the other containing all the above, plus something new. Now knowledge has moved to a new philosophical dimension involving different perspectives, bringing together many efforts and holding in a new and different "notion of truth." Previously was monological reason: what I capture it, and now the perspective or approach is dialogic: dialog. It's not "I and my roll" is "We and our roll" is more consensual. The truth is discussed and social outcome. If you have left consensus means that at some point there has been dissent, that has brought us this far.
For in truth we have methodology to carry out certain processes that lead us to the truth or verification: are the criteria of validity and each methodology has its own criteria.
The new methodology is more systematic, and engages people and effort micha of dialogic truth out there and severally (consensus).
Synergy: composition of many efforts.
In this scenario appear Kuhn paradigms. We have already noticed that the notion of social reality, is what we understand, not mine.
The paradigm is like a wave or last stream that is working. A social construct theoretical - conceptual allows us to interpret at a given time (eg in the '60s was psychoanalytic paradigm). A paradigm is a methodology.
The separate category of reality is the totality. The view taken is a universalist perspective on a particularistic. Currently we are working on the basis of this paradigm of the whole.
Kuhn assumed the role of science is to produce knowledge, and this can do more and better with or paradigm (as a macro - method).
Any contradiction to appear before a paradigm is not a refutation as happens in falsificationism, but it may be anomalies, due to the methodology itself, but does not mean the crisis of the paradigm. Although ultimately, by accumulation of anomalies or because the refutations are deeper, they can get the paradigm crisis, it is reality itself that puts in doubt.
When normal science is in crisis, is the best time to grow, it appears the revolution and put into question the fundamentals, and can become a matter of theory and theoretical interpretació - conceptual. But revolution is the time of joining the new normal science, with its new paradigm.
Let paradigm paradigm and methodology methodology. The competing paradigms as falsificationism, when a new one appears the former will leave and go. A paradigm is a way of thinking about how knowledge is produced.
0 yorum:
Yorum Gönder