Contemporary Sociological Theory

Sociology 2111

Department of Sociology and Anthropology
UMD
QUESTIONS KUHN IS ASKING
  1. WHAT IS THE SEARCH FOR KNOWLEDGE LIKE BEFORE PARADIGMS?
  2. HOW DO PARADIGMS COME INTO EXISTENCE?
  3. WHAT IS THE SEARCH FOR KNOWLEDGE LIKE DURING THE LIFE OF A PARADIGM?
  4. WHAT CAUSES PARADIGMS TO CHANGE? 5.
  5. WHAT IS THE IMPACT OF THAT CHANGE?
  1. WHAT CAUSES CRISIS IN SCIENCE?
  2. HOW DO SCIENTISTS RESPOND TO CRISIS?
  3. WHAT IS A SCIENTIFIC REVOLUTION?
  4. IS THE WORLD THE SAME OR DIFFERENT AFTER THE REVOLUTION?
  5. WHY DON'T WE SEE KNOWLEDGE ACCUMULATING IN THE WAY KUHN AND BURKE DISCUSS IT?
EPISTEMOLOGY:
A THEORY OF THE NATURE AND GROUNDS OF KNOWLEDGE. HOW IS IT THE THAT THE HUMAN RACE ACCUMULATES KNOWLEDGE AND PASSES THAT ON TO THE NEXT GENERATION? IT APPEARS THAT MOST LIVING CREATURES MERELY LIVE AS PART OF NATURE, SURVIVING AS ONE PIECE OF A BROADER PUZZLE. HUMAN BEINGS NOT ONLY LIVE AS PART OF NATURE BUT SEEM TO INCREASING GAIN CONTROL AND DOMINANCE OVER THE WORLD TO THE POINT OF CREATING AND DESTROYING AT WILL. HOW IS THIS POSSIBLE?
THE SOCIOLOGY OF KNOWLEDGE:
"...A SET OF QUESTIONS AND OF METHODOLOGICAL DIRECTIONS, AIMING TO STUDY THE SOCIAL `DETERMINANTS' OF KNOWLEDGE AND PARTICULARLY OF SCIENTIFIC KNOWLEDGE. IN A WIDER SENSE... (IT) AIMS TO PLACE UNDER ITS LAWS THE `DETERMINANTS' BELIEFS AND OF IDEOLOGIES AS WELL AS THOSE OF KNOWLEDGE." (BOUDON & BOURRICAUD1986:213)
THE STRUCTURE OF SCIENTIFIC REVOLUTIONS THOMAS S. KUHN

Chapter one: The Role of History (pages 1-9)

There are lots of ways to explain the world, why things were the way they were; why things are the way they are; and what is likely to be the shape of the future.

the history of science is like an individuals memory, it is a stockpile or building up of increments of knowledge and scientific techniques; Kuhn points out the a history of science keeps tabs of both the increments and the road blocks that happens on the way to scientific truth;

Development-by-accumulation; the pebble theory of knowledge or the linear theory of knowledge; doesn't seem to really account for "How we Know." Take a look at practically any introductory book that addresses the scientific method. They explain how science works, from curiosity, to observations of facts to hypothesis formation, to testing (more fact gathering to support hypothesis) more fact finding, to theory, to truth. A cumulative process which continuously builds on earlier research in the search for truth or satisfy the curiosity of the individual. The great person who had the insight to ask the question, which is considered the real hard part of doing research, which distinguishes "the geniuses for the rest of us slobs."

In the process of building towards absolute truth, some theories and hypotheses get tossed aside. Many of the former ways of understanding are now referred to as myth. What Kuhn maintains is that if these older ways are myth, "...then myths can be produced by the same sorts of methods and held for the same sorts of reasons that now lead to scientific knowledge" (page 2).

That is, logic and reason are such an important part of the scientific enterprize, then logic and reason accounts for both myth and science. "If, on the other hand, they (myths) are to be called science, then science has included bodies of belief quite incompatible with the ones we hold today." (page 2). Given that the latter is the best account for past theories, how can science be seen as a cumulative process?

A new image of science is emerging (remember this is 1962 that Kuhn is writing this book!).

the book promises to reveal certain aspects of science
  1. scientific method alone cannot account for what gets explored or which direction science takes or the conclusions reached
  2. different ways of seeing which are affected by arbitrary aspects, like assumptions made, characteristics of the person, etc., directs research and limits ways of seeing.
  3. Role of education in producing the proper way to see
  4. the new science quickly believes it knows the major outlines of knowledge and tries to fill in
  5. anomalies develop
  6. revolutions emerge
Chapter Two: THE ROUTE TO NORMAL SCIENCE

ideas, notions etc. come along which defines ".. . the legitimate problems and methods of a research field for succeeding generations of practitioners."

WHY?

  1. unprecedented - could attract "enduring group" away from competing activity
  2. open enough to give them plenty to do
this is what kuhn now calls a paradigm:

paradigms introduce or indoctrinate young folk into the scientific community - they don't make waves. it insures the continuation of the paradigm and research in that area; they become committed to the same rules and standards for scientific practice

there can be sort of science without paradigm but "Acquisition of a paradigm and of the more esoteric type of research it permits is a sigh of maturity in the development of any given scientific field." (pg. 11)

with competing schools of thought there is no common body of belief, each person must start from scratch

has the social sciences acquired paradigms
see page 12 then page 15

technology has played a role in the emergence of new sciences

competition disappears and one pre-paradigm commands the attention of practitioners

to be a paradigm a theory must be better than others at explaining facts, but does not explain all facts

what happens to scientists do not accept paradigm? pg. 17

creation of specialized journals; specialists societies, ;lace in curriculum - comes after acceptance of single paradigm

there are definite advantages to accepting a paradigm,

need not start from scratch each time; can address your work to specialists, not to general audience textbooks not give the general history and overview; (authors not given much credit for such work) is the narrow specialization good or bad? (page 21 top)

What proclaims a field of study a science? a paradigm that guides groups research

CHAPTER 3: THE NATURE OF NORMAL SCIENCE A PARADIGM IS RARELY REPLICATED; IT IS FURTHER ARTICULATED AND SPECIFIED

PARADIGMS APPEAR MORE SUCCESSFUL THAN OTHER APPROACHES AT EXPLAINING OR SOLVING PROBLEMS

THERE IS ALWAYS A PROMISE OR HINT OF SUCCESS

MOST OF US JUST DO "MOPPING UP"

THIS IS REALLY NORMAL SCIENCE

"...THAT ENTERPRISE SEEMS AN ATTEMPT TO FORCE NATURE INTO THE PREFORMED AND RELATIVELY INFLEXIBLE BOX THAT THE PARADIGM SUPPLIES." (PG. 24)

NOT REALLY LOOKING FOR NEW PHENOMENA OR DISCOVERIES AT ALL!!

LIMITATIONS ON SCIENTISTS - RESTRICTED VISION BUT THIS IS NECESSARY, IT ALLOWS FOR DETAILED STUDY NOT CONCEIVABLE WITHOUT A PARADIGM,

WE KNOW MORE AND MORE ABOUT LESS AND LESS

NORMAL SCIENCE SOLVES PROBLEMS AND AT LEAST PART OF WHAT IS SOLVED REMAINS PERMANENT.

A MAJOR PART OF NORMAL SCIENCE IS FACT GATHERING

WHAT IS PURSUED TO BE STUDY?

WHY THAT?

WHAT MOTIVATES THE CHOICE?

THERE ARE THREE MAJOR FOCI IN NORMAL SCIENCE

  1. ATTEMPTS TO INCREASE THE ACCURACY AND SCOPE OF FACTS;

    REPUTATIONS GET BUILT ON PRECISION, RELIABILITY AND SCOPE OF METHODS SURROUNDING A KNOW FACT
  2. FACTS COMPARED TO PREDICTIONS; TRYING TO BRING NATURE AND THEORY CLOSER TOGETHER
  3. EMPIRICAL WORK TO ARTICULATE OR MAKE THE PARADIGM CLEARER AND MORE EXACT
PARADIGMS DICTATE HOW RESEARCH AND WHAT RESEARCH WILL BE DONE; THIS CAN'T BE OTHERWISE;

WE CAN'T THINK OF PROBLEMS OR KNOW WHERE TO LOOK WITHOUT ASSUMPTIONS DIRECTING OUR ATTENTION

CHAPTER 4: NORMAL SCIENCE AS PUZZLE-SOLVING

POINT OF NORMAL RESEARCH IS NOT AIMED AT REDUCING NOVELTIES OR MAKING TRUE DISCOVERIES

THE RANGE OF EXPECTATION IS RELATIVELY SMALL WHILE THE IMAGINATION AND POTENTIAL QUESTIONS ARE MORE LIMITLESS

DURING RESEARCH, WHEN OUTCOMES DON'T FIT EXPECTATIONS IT IS USUALLY SEEN AS THE FAULT OF THE SCIENTIST NOT THE SCIENCE

SOME FACTS ALWAYS REMAIN OUTSIDE

WHEN FACTS OR CONDITIONS EXIST THAT DON'T FIT THEY DON'T PLAY A ROLE IN THE ADVANCEMENT OF SCIENCE, THEY MAKE SENSE LATER UNDER A DIFFERENT PARADIGM

"EVEN THE PROJECT WHOSE GOAL IS PARADIGM ARTICULATION DOES NOT AIM AT THE UNEXPECTED NOVELTY. (PG. 35)

WHAT IS THE ROLE OF NORMAL SCIENCE IF NOT NOVELTIES AND IF FAILURE IS SCIENTIST NOT THE APPROACH?

"THROUGH ITS OUTCOME CAN BE ANTICIPATED, OFTEN IN DETAIL SO GREAT THAT WHAT REMAINS TO BE KNOW IS ITSELF UNINTERESTING, THE WAY TO ACHIEVE THAT OUTCOME REMAINS VERY MUCH IN DOUBT. BRINGING A NORMAL RESEARCH PROBLEM TO A CONCLUSION IS ACHIEVING THE ANTICIPATED IN A NEW WAY, AND IT REQUIRES THE SOLUTION OF ALL SORTS OF COMPLEX INSTRUMENTAL, CONCEPTUAL, AND MATHEMATICAL PUZZLES. THE MAN WHO SUCCEEDS PROVES HIMSELF AN EXPERT PUZZLE-SOLVER, AND THE CHALLENGE OF THE PUZZLE IS AN IMPORTANT PART OF WHAT USUALLY DRIVES HIM ON." (PG. 36)
IS HUMAN NATURE DRIVEN BY CHALLENGE NOT CURIOSITY?

THE INTRINSIC VALUE OF THE PUZZLE IS NOT IMPORTANT, IT IS "THE ASSURED EXISTENCE OF A SOLUTION."

PARADIGMS MUST PROVIDE PROBLEMS WITH FORESEEABLE SOLUTIONS

"ONE OF THE REASONS WHY NORMAL SCIENCE SEEMS TO PROGRESS SO RAPIDLY IS THAT ITS PRACTITIONERS CONCENTRATE ON PROBLEMS THAT ONLY THEIR OWN LACK OF INGENUITY SHOULD KEEP THEM FROM SOLVING." (PG. 37)

"THERE MUST ALSO BE RULES THAT LIMIT BOTH THE NATURE OF ACCEPTABLE SOLUTIONS AND THE STEPS BY WHICH THEY ARE TO BE OBTAINED." (PG. 38)

ARE THERE ANY LAWS IN SOCIOLOGY?

BELOW LAWS ARE COMMITMENTS TO PREFERRED TYPES OF INSTRUMENTATION - CONCRETE APPLICATIONS CONTENT ANALYSIS OR OBSERVATIONAL RULES

DOES CONFLICT OR ORDER CHARACTERIZE SOCIAL LIFE?

IF ONE JOINS A GROUP EITHER BECAUSE OF INTEREST OR VALUES, WHY WOULD THEY STAY IF GROUP PROCESS IS PAINFUL?

COMMITMENTS
  1. CONCEPTUAL
  2. THEORETICAL
  3. INSTRUMENTAL
  4. METHODOLOGICAL
PUZZLE-SOLVING IS WHAT IS IMPORTANT TO SCIENTISTS; THE PUZZLE WE THINK WE ALREADY KNOW!

HOW DOES ONE SOLVE A PUZZLE? CHAPTER SEVEN

ANOMALIES AND DISCOVERIES LEAD TO DOUBTS WITH THE PARADIGM

what causes scientific revolutions?
they build and crisis surface raising doubts, problems and debates

what happens to scientists?
scientists can't reject because they won't be scientists

rules begin to loosen up allowing alternatives to emerge

What was considered proven facts are even now questioned

when paradigms are in crisis shifts begin to take place

research in this time looks like preparadigm

during crisis science work seems more philosophical

scientific revolutions are when older paradigm is replaced with new one

scientists use the premises of their paradigm to ague it's truth

paradigms are: pg. 103

"They are the source of the methods, problem-field, and standards of solution accepted by any mature scientific community at anytime."

old problem maybe of no concern; trivial problems may become important

paradigms also have pg. 109

"...paradigms provide scientists not only with a map but also with some of the directions essential for map making. In learning a paradigm the scientist acquires theory, methods, and standards together, usually in an inextricable mixture."

people in paradigms talk past each other pg. 109

the world is not what we saw before pg. 113
"What a man sees depends upon what he looks at and also upon what his previous visual-conceptual experience has taught him to see."

or is it? pg. 129-130 sees many of the same things using many of the same tools, same language

training from outside paradigm helps bring change

why don't we see knowledge accumulating in the way Kuhn and Burke discuss it?

text books disguise revolutions; write history backward; take current and make past fit

it looks linier; page 140 bottom

New paradigms take over most completely when proponents of older paradigm die off pg. 151

Picture of Bulldog

The University of Minnesota is an equal opportunity educator and employer.

Copyright: © 2001, John Hamlin
Last Modified: Friday, 12-Sep-2003 15:16:33 CDT
Page URL: http://www.d.umn.edu/cla/faculty/jhamlin/4111/Paradigm/KuhnThomas.html
Page Coordinator:John Hamlin