Thomas Nickles suggests that there are three types of people: “pro-Kuhn, anti-Kuhn, or neutral.” If you are pro-Kuhn you would, for example, agree with his terms like normal science, revolutions, and paradigm shifts, and support that science is not a “long, progressive ascent toward truth.” If you are anti-Kuhn, then you would agree with critics like Israel Scheffler who claimed that Kuhn was an “irrationalist, subjectivist, relativist, and irrealist for denying that science gives us the objective truth about reality.”
Are you pro-Kuhn anti-Kuhn or neutral? Why? Support your response with examples from our readings.
Reference:
https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/thomas-kuhn/
Choosing between being pro-Kuhn, anti-Kuhn, or neutral depends on one’s perspective on the philosophy of science and how one views the progression and nature of scientific knowledge.
Pro-Kuhn
If I were pro-Kuhn, I would align with Kuhn’s view that science does not follow a linear path towards truth. Instead, scientific progress occurs through a series of paradigm shifts, where a dominant paradigm undergoes a crisis and is replaced by a new one. This process involves periods of “normal science,” where research is conducted within the bounds of the prevailing paradigm, and “scientific revolutions,” where fundamental changes occur.
Example: Kuhn’s concept of paradigm shifts can be illustrated by the shift from Newtonian physics to Einstein’s theory of relativity. Newtonian physics dominated for centuries, but anomalies such as the perihelion of Mercury’s orbit could not be explained within its framework. Einstein’s relativity offered a new paradigm that resolved these anomalies and fundamentally changed our understanding of space and time.
Anti-Kuhn
If I were anti-Kuhn, I would side with critics like Israel Scheffler, who argue that Kuhn’s views lead to relativism and the denial of objective truth in science. This perspective holds that science is a cumulative process that progressively uncovers objective truths about reality, and that paradigm shifts are less about wholesale revolutions and more about refinement and extension of existing knowledge.
Example: The development of the atomic theory of matter can be seen as a cumulative process. From Dalton’s early atomic theory to the discovery of subatomic particles and quantum mechanics, each step built upon previous knowledge rather than completely overthrowing it. This perspective suggests a continuous and progressive refinement of scientific understanding.
Neutral
If I were neutral, I would recognize the strengths and weaknesses in both perspectives. Kuhn’s description of scientific revolutions captures the transformative changes that sometimes occur in science, but I would also acknowledge that many scientific advances are cumulative and build on previous knowledge.
Example: The field of genetics illustrates both cumulative and revolutionary aspects. The discovery of the DNA double helix by Watson and Crick was a revolutionary paradigm shift that fundamentally changed our understanding of heredity. However, subsequent research in genetics has been largely cumulative, building on the foundation laid by their discovery.
Conclusion
Personally, I lean towards being pro-Kuhn because his framework offers a robust explanation for the episodic nature of scientific breakthroughs. However, I also appreciate the anti-Kuhn perspective for emphasizing the continuity and accumulation of scientific knowledge. This nuanced view allows for a more comprehensive understanding of how science progresses, incorporating both revolutionary shifts and cumulative advancements.
Supporting Examples from Readings
- Kuhn’s “The Structure of Scientific Revolutions”: Kuhn’s work itself provides detailed case studies of paradigm shifts, such as the Copernican Revolution and the transition from classical mechanics to quantum mechanics.
- Scheffler’s Critique: Scheffler’s critique in “Science and Subjectivity” highlights concerns about relativism and the loss of objectivity in Kuhn’s model, arguing for a more progressive and cumulative view of scientific advancement.
By considering both perspectives and their critiques, I find a balanced approach most reflective of the complex nature of scientific progress.