#esp2017scirev

[pleasantlyhardbluebird-blog]

The Structure of Scientific Revolution

In the words of Thomas S. Kuhn, “A scientific revolution is a non cumulative developmental episode in which an older paradigm is replaced in whole or in part by an incompatible new one.” The word revolution has now become colloquial, as people use it interchangeably with progression and change. However, The Structure of Scientific Revolutions, written by Thomas S. Kuhn, specifically expresses how scientific revolution does not build upon previous ideas, but rather expedites the creation of a completely new idea. Kuhn uses political revolution as an analogy to compare the similar characteristics of scientific revolution. From that analogy, I was able to interpret how scientific revolution shaped our politics, ideas, and decision-making processes.

 Further expanding upon the political revolution analogy, I came to find how scientific and political revolutions share the notion that preexistent ideologies and methods proved to be inadequate for society, and thus, new thought was necessary. It was striking for me to see how the previous paradigms were suddenly rejected, and now ‘competing camps and parties’ formed to either revitalize or destroy the previous paradigm. Once this occurs, political recourse is unattainable due to the nuances of the new paradigms. The end result is a new set of ideas (agreed upon, or not), and the older ways are given less attention, so to speak.

 The most intriguing aspect of this reading, however, was the notion that assimilation, or a complete shift, in thinking was necessary for scientific revolution to be complete. Kuhn explained that a mass amount of people needed to improve in the new paradigm and have it commonly accepted by society to deem it as a revolution. But then the question arises: Do we really need public approval to verify a revolution in scientific knowledge? The political analogy and other analysis primarily suggests that the public is crucial in the verification of scientific revolution. But if Newton’s laws of physics and Einstein’s theory of relativity were never accepted by the public, would they be considered irrelevant despite their importance today? Fortunately, Kuhn touches on this as he talks about the perpetual movement of human thought around the world. Once something new is discovered, all ideas change, either leaving behind the previous paradigm, or acknowledging its importance and moving on. Nonetheless, this reading has shown how diction and the simple concept of change can affect human understanding and begin a global revolution.

[delicateblazenacho-blog]

The Structure of Scientific Revolutions

The Structure of Scientific Revolutions

By Thomas S. Kuhn

 A scientific revolution is a non cumulative developmental episode in which an older paradigm is replaced in whole or in part by an incompatible new one (92). Society is constantly changing; always evolving. As human beings we are regularly looking for ways to make ourselves better so it’s no surprise to see many revolutions being created throughout the history of humanity. In our search for perfection we have come together, either in small or large groups, and decided on where we wanted to go. Currently, we are free to make our own decisions but back then it didn’t work that way. Even now if whatever it is we want to change is dramatically different from the norm it’s deemed as taboo, or even a revolution.

 Revolutions have been a key component of our history. Without them the world as we know it now would not be the same whatsoever. Military and political revolutions have shaped societies for ages, but it’s the scientific revolutions that have really made an impact on every single one of us. The changes in the ways we think themselves have been revolutionary. Back to the day when people stopped believing whatever the church told them and started to inquire about their surroundings. That was a turning point. People started to study and invest time and effort into science. Most of our knowledge nowadays is based off of the studies completed during the scientific revolution of the 16th century.

At their core, revolutions, regardless of their nature, are very similar to one another. They all go out of the norm and set a trend for future events. What is interesting about revolutions is that they begin as people become aware of what’s not working in their system, whether it’s right or wrong.

[tailored-to-perfection-blog]

Structure of Scientific Revolution Response

In “The Structure of Scientific Revolution” by Thomas S. Kuhn, I was opened to a new way of thinking, one that really hadn’t presented itself to me before, but now after reading this, makes me think more about the reality of science in the world around us. This reading explained basically what a scientific revolution was, and what caused a scientific revolution, as in what are the requirements that have to be met in order for a new finding to be called a scientific revolution. This reading opened my eyes to the fact that not everything we learn in school is proven fact.

Many theories and concepts that we learn could in fact be false, or just not completely correct. For example, take the idea of gravity. Everyone who went through elementary school knows that there is a responsible force for keeping us on the ground, which is called gravity. It keeps us from floating around as if we were in space. When going into higher levels of education, you learn that gravity pulls at an acceleration of nine point eight meters per second per second, and that it is the relative mass of the planet (earth) that keeps each person grounded. But when you take a step back, what really is gravity? A force? Then what is a force? What causes forces? Why are there forces? If someone were to solve these questions, it would be called a gestalt switch. In a gestalt switch, ideas aren’t completely proven false, but more or less renovated. On the flip side, if a scientist came out with an idea of gravity being a nonexistent idea, and forces are just a theory created to explain unnatural phenomenon (of course backed up by sound reasoning and evidence) this could be considered a scientific revolution. The idea of gravity and everything in relation to it would have to be reimagined. The view of the world as we know it today would completely change.

With that, I came to realize that there are those innovators in science and technology who come to redefine the world as we know it. They are the ones who, quite literally, shape our world. Through different theories, methods, and standards, scientists have spent years arguing over the truths of our world. Look at the arguments between evolution and creation. To every revolution there will be two sides, and with every revolution there is a completely different perspective on our world. Each scientist him or herself should not be afraid to contest the ideas of the scientist before him or herself, there is always the possibility that they are incorrect. From this reading, I learned that I should not be afraid to question the science I have always known. Questions are where revolutions begin.

[spookymoongentlemen-blog]

Physics Reflection 2

“A Scientific Revolution is a non-cumulative development episode in which an older paradigm is replaced in whole or in part by an incompatible new one.”  is the definition given by Thomas S. Kuhn in this reading. This intrepid definition provides lucidity about an immensely broad topic that is widely misunderstood or often misinterpreted. It elucidates to the reader that these revolutions often begin with a “growing sense” commenced by individuals of political communities where institutions have failed to effectively solve the problems and complications created by the environment in which they are a part of. I interpreted that these revolutions are suggestive solutions to change the way these institutions operate and go about solving problems within the environment or community.

     One other part of this reading that stood out was, that a new scientific theory often arises and commands that a paradigm that came before must be rejected. This assists the reader in understanding how scientific development is not cumulative. If it were to be cumulative, older paradigms would not be forcibly rejected by newer theories. The writer is basically trying to explain how scientific development will never be cumulative because of this chaining process that allows one theory to trump another older in age. This supports the theory that normal research is often cumulative but not scientific. During this reading, I interpreted that the writer explains that his view on scientific development and research is not the view of most individuals. The prevalent view often assumes that new theories derive from or are often newer additions to older paradigms. This widespread view is considered incorrect in my opinion because I feel that many older theories have not been effectively tested.

 The writing style of this reading was extremely unique. In the beginning pages, the writing seems to be incomprehensible because of the word choice and the way the author explains the reasoning behind many of his thoughts. As I progressively moved through this reading the writing became more comprehensible and his thoughts began to come together more cohesively. The author's purpose for writing this was to effectively explain how revolutions are essential to scientific development and research. In his effort to do this, I as a reader understood how theories and revolutions essential.  

[eccentricrubberduckyconnois-blog]

Scientific Revolutions and their principles

The nature of scientific revolution, as discussed by Thomas S. Kuhn, reveals distinct guidelines for the methodology of scientists pursuing the next great frame shift in scientific thought. He attempts to find an underlying theme behind the minds of great thinkers such as Einstein and Galileo, and in doing so he discovers techniques of the mind that are applicable to any student of science.

 Certainly unconventional, great thinkers that spur whole systems of thought require specific frames of mind to discover what has yet to be outlined by contemporary instruments or techniques. Kuhn specifies that “ An excessive concern with useful problems, regardless of their relation to existing knowledge and technique, easily inhibit scientific.” That is, Kuhn challenges the majority of research that is being today. Recently, Ambitious graduate students flock to large corporations or think tanks that find solutions to practical issues. Exxon Mobil, and its promise of further efficient fuels and decreasing environmental footprints has been powered by hundreds of researchers who make small jumps in efficiency. Yet these researchers, even with their collective brainpower, are not capable of finding any anomaly in a property of matter given their parameters. Specifically, they work under strict limitations such as modifying a certain protein or furthering the efficiency of a component of a oil processing device. These endeavors, while noble and productive towards society, lack the mindset required to discover subtle bugs in a system. Imagination is the essential attribute and yet it is not instituted often in the classroom nor suggested in a lab. As described by Einstein, knowledge is the collective information of the known world, but imagination allows us to venture beyond it.  Based on the properties of discovery of new paradigms, I find it imperative that practices stretching our imagination find their way into classrooms and workspaces across the globe.

 The author also emphasizes the idea of a mental model similar to a gestalt switch to occur frequently in the mind of scientists pursuing the nature of a subject that may lead to anomaly. The gestalt switch describes a maneuver in which the same material or environment is observed, but the perception of the viewer is adjusted so that a different aspect of it is discovered. This shift in perception was often altered by new instruments in fields such as astronomy. Yet, the gestalt switch also relates to a mental state of mind that almost all scientists lack at times. Kuhn’s essay suggests that the scientist must allow their assumptions to be malleable, and to not take all of past work as fact. However, disregarding all established theories will only slow research to a snail like pace. But all scientists must train their brains to process information through multiple lenses, or collaborate with other disciplines to have different fields of study to offer their own perception on the same subject matter.

 Revolutions are described as either political, or involving the change in a paradigm for a certain field of study or theory. Yet, technological revolutions, which are forefront in today’s research fields, are justifiably revolutionary in their impact on society despite their lack of paradigm shift. For example, the steam engine brought productivity to factories  multiple times over of its predecessor, but it did not challenge the properties of any prior technology. However, the technologies ability to drastically change the structure of society and the productivity of its members suggest that it is revolutionary in at least some sense of the word.

 Kuhn offers strong practices of which we all can enhance to bring further discovery; imagination, and the ease of shifting between different frames of perception. Among others, these practices can help to drastically improve the rate of discovery if properly instituted. These practices can be applied to the theoretical side of scientific research, but also enable the passage through the next technological threshold. Thus, his essay offers a robust framework for future scientific discoveries.

[themostsarcasticperson-blog]

Scientific Revolution

“But it is hard to make nature fit a paradigm. That is why the puzzles of normal science are so challenging and also why measurements undertaken without a paradigm so seldom lead to any conclusions at all. Chemists could not, therefore, simply accept Dalton’s theory on the evidence, for much of that was still negative. Instead, even after accepting the theory, they had still to beat nature into line, a process which, in the event, took almost another generation. When it was done, even the percentage composition of well-known compounds was different. The data themselves had changed. That is the last of the senses in which we may want to say that after a revolution scientists work in a different world.”  (pg. 135)

           What this quote is saying, is that when chemists prove or accept a theory they have to “beat nature into line” which simply means they have to force nature into proving the theory. One generation can’t simply accept a theory and force nature into line; the next generation is needed for that process. What the last sentence is trying to say is that scientists work in a different area, from where they started, after a scientific revolution. Once a scientific revolution happens it changes almost everything for chemists and other scientists. By disproving and proving different theories in the scientific field.

The definition of the scientific revolution is a concept used by historians to describe the emergence of modern science during the early modern period, when developments in mathematics, physics, astronomy, biology and chemistry transformed the views of society about nature. Societal views about nature have changed drastically over the years because of all of the different theories being proved and disproved in different ways. The scientific revolution goes back to the first sentence on proving that it is hard to make nature fit in to a paradigm.  

[sheepandsnowflakes-blog]

Physics Reflection 2

   From reading Thomas S. Kuhn’s The Structure of Scientific Revolutions, I find myself drawn to the gestalt experiments in which the ease of psychological shifts and perceptions are revealed.  In particular, my favorite demonstration of this effect is when Kuhn presents his first examples of this theory:

Looking at a contour map, the student sees lines on paper, the cartographer a picture of a terrain.  Looking at a bubble-chamber photograph, the student sees confused and broken lines, the physicist a record of familiar subnuclear events. (111).

I am compelled to this portion of the literature because it illustrates the variations of perception based on experience quite nicely.  The first circumstance addressed is the where the student and the cartographer are both viewing a terrain diagram.  This scenario interests me as it highlights the way in which one’s experience creates a new viewpoint which is trained to recognize the marks and symbols which are mere scribbles to the untrained eye.  I find this fascinating because it shows just how much our minds can be shaped and learn to recognize new information.  This also leads me to ponder that the student’s situation is similar to that of a young child.  In the same way that a child is lost amongst the syllables of its parents,  a developing student places no significance upon the diagrams of the cartographer.  The second exemplification of this concept embedded in the passage is where a second student attempts to understand the physicist’s photograph.  While the physicist easily interprets the lines and spaces of the image as vital subnuclear information, the amateur can only look at the seemingly randomized dashes and be perplexed.  This variance in perceptions is closely related to that of the previous example, but the latter is still distinct from the former.  In this instance, the aspects of the topic being analyzed, subnuclear events, seems to have more at stake for one’s lack of understanding then if a terrain map is misread.  This begs the question, “Does the importance, or lack thereof, of the information being misinterpreted affect the obligation of the interpreter to decipher the material?”.  I would  like to say not, but in reality, far too often there is a difference in the emphasis placed upon information as simple as the color wheel versus the geometry involved in architecture.  While both are necessary components to vastly different professions, the work of the architect is often more appreciated than the work of the artist.  This has nothing to do with the difficulty of the professions themselves, but rather it lies with the opinions that society has placed on the work of both.  While both are valuable skills, we have been trained to hold one profession above the other.  Although this train of thought is by no means the original intent of the cited passage, it is a thought which I have derived from the examples which it provides.  In the end, while I am intrigued with the different skill sets and perceptions which the mind can formulate, this question of how skills are ranked in order of significance from the public’s point of view must also be evaluated in order to fully comprehend the tiers of knowledge of which one can aspire to.

[freshenthusiastwhispers-blog]

In an excerpt from The Structure of Science Revolutions by Thomas S. Kuhn, Kuhn brings comparison to scientific revolutions with political revolutions. From what he pointed out, it makes a lot of sense of how both revolutions are very similar. Seeing that both usually occurs between two parties, one sticking to the traditional view and one that seeks the new institution. He pointed out that the discovery of new information can be cumulative or revolutionary. Although there are scientific laws such as Newtonian motions and thermodynamics that are almost impossible to challenge or disprove, most research results are still able to be challenged. Practical and applicable research usually produces cumulative information and furthers the current paradigm while impractical and inapplicable researches are more likely to create revolutionary results that contradicts the current paradigm. As pointed by a colleague with an affinity with rubber duckies, many of Albert Einstein’s research was not very common during his period of science research, but he ended up producing revolutionary results and theories such as the theory of relativity and theory of gravitational waves. Impractical researches/ revolutionists are important in the developing of society by replacing old paradigm.

Newly established scientific institutions allow people to see a completely different view of the world as political revolution theoretically creates a better system of order to benefit everyone. As time goes on, however, the author points out that argumentation and presentation of information has became more influential than the actual content sometimes when it comes to political and scientific issues. In my opinion, society would be much more productive if both field were more fact based and informative rather than argument and story based. On informal information exchange platforms such as Facebook, attention seekers often overstate or report false news to gain attention and create false information being shared around.