A paradigm shift, a concept identified by the American physicist and philosopher Thomas Kuhn, is a fundamental change in the basic concepts and experimental practices of a scientific discipline. Even though Kuhn restricted the use of the term to the natural sciences, the concept of a paradigm shift has also been used in numerous non-scientific contexts to describe a profound change in a fundamental model or perception of events.

Kuhn presented his notion of a paradigm shift in his influential book The Structure of Scientific Revolutions (1962).

Kuhn contrasts paradigm shifts, which characterize a scientific revolution, to the activity of normal science, which he describes as scientific work done within a prevailing framework or paradigm. Paradigm shifts arise when the dominant paradigm under which normal science operates is rendered incompatible with new phenomena, facilitating the adoption of a new theory or paradigm.[1]

As one commentator summarizes:

Kuhn acknowledges having used the term "paradigm" in two different meanings. In the first one, "paradigm" designates what the members of a certain scientific community have in common, that is to say, the whole of techniques, patents and values shared by the members of the community. In the second sense, the paradigm is a single element of a whole, say for instance Newton’s Principia, which, acting as a common model or an example... stands for the explicit rules and thus defines a coherent tradition of investigation. Thus the question is for Kuhn to investigate by means of the paradigm what makes possible the constitution of what he calls "normal science". That is to say, the science which can decide if a certain problem will be considered scientific or not. Normal science does not mean at all a science guided by a coherent system of rules, on the contrary, the rules can be derived from the paradigms, but the paradigms can guide the investigation also in the absence of rules. This is precisely the second meaning of the term "paradigm", which Kuhn considered the most new and profound, though it is in truth the oldest.[2]

History

The nature of scientific revolutions has been studied by modern philosophy since Immanuel Kant used the phrase in the preface to the second edition of his Critique of Pure Reason (1787). Kant used the phrase "revolution of the way of thinking" (Revolution der Denkart) to refer to Greek mathematics and Newtonian physics. In the 20th century, new developments in the basic concepts of mathematics, physics, and biology revitalized interest in the question among scholars.

Original usage

Kuhn used the duck-rabbit optical illusion, made famous by Wittgenstein, to demonstrate the way in which a paradigm shift could cause one to see the same information in an entirely different way.[3]
Kuhn used the duck-rabbit optical illusion, made famous by Wittgenstein, to demonstrate the way in which a paradigm shift could cause one to see the same information in an entirely different way.[3]

In his 1962 book The Structure of Scientific Revolutions, Kuhn explains the development of paradigm shifts in science into four stages:

Features

Paradigm shifts and progress

A common misinterpretation of paradigms is the belief that the discovery of paradigm shifts and the dynamic nature of science (with its many opportunities for subjective judgments by scientists) are a case for relativism:[10] the view that all kinds of belief systems are equal. Kuhn vehemently denies this interpretation[11] and states that when a scientific paradigm is replaced by a new one, albeit through a complex social process, the new one is always better, not just different.

Incommensurability

These claims of relativism are, however, tied to another claim that Kuhn does at least somewhat endorse: that the language and theories of different paradigms cannot be translated into one another or rationally evaluated against one another—that they are incommensurable. This gave rise to much talk of different peoples and cultures having radically different worldviews or conceptual schemes—so different that whether or not one was better, they could not be understood by one another. However, the philosopher Donald Davidson published the highly regarded essay "On the Very Idea of a Conceptual Scheme" (Proceedings and Addresses of the American Philosophical Association, Vol. 47, (1973–1974), pp. 5–20) in 1974 arguing that the notion that any languages or theories could be incommensurable with one another was itself incoherent. If this is correct, Kuhn's claims must be taken in a weaker sense than they often are. Furthermore, the hold of the Kuhnian analysis on social science has long been tenuous, with the wide application of multi-paradigmatic approaches in order to understand complex human behaviour (see for example John Hassard, Sociology and Organization Theory: Positivism, Paradigm and Postmodernity. Cambridge University Press, 1993, ISBN 0521350344).

Gradualism vs. sudden change

Paradigm shifts tend to be most dramatic in sciences that appear to be stable and mature, as in physics at the end of the 19th century. At that time, physics seemed to be a discipline filling in the last few details of a largely worked-out system.

In The Structure of Scientific Revolutions, Kuhn wrote, "Successive transition from one paradigm to another via revolution is the usual developmental pattern of mature science" (p. 12). Kuhn's idea was itself revolutionary in its time as it caused a major change in the way that academics talk about science. Thus, it could be argued that it caused or was itself part of a "paradigm shift" in the history and sociology of science. However, Kuhn would not recognise such a paradigm shift. In the social sciences, people can still use earlier ideas to discuss the history of science.

Philosophers and historians of science, including Kuhn himself, ultimately accepted a modified version of Kuhn's model, which synthesizes his original view with the gradualist model that preceded it.[citation needed]

Examples

Natural sciences

Some of the "classical cases" of Kuhnian paradigm shifts in science are:

Social sciences

In Kuhn's view, the existence of a single reigning paradigm is characteristic of the natural sciences, while philosophy and much of social science were characterized by a "tradition of claims, counterclaims, and debates over fundamentals."[23] Others have applied Kuhn's concept of paradigm shift to the social sciences.

Applied sciences

More recently, paradigm shifts are also recognisable in applied sciences:

Other uses

The term "paradigm shift" has found uses in other contexts, representing the notion of a major change in a certain thought pattern—a radical change in personal beliefs, complex systems or organizations, replacing the former way of thinking or organizing with a radically different way of thinking or organizing:

Criticism

In a 2015 retrospective on Kuhn,[40] the philosopher Martin Cohen describes the notion of the paradigm shift as a kind of intellectual virus – spreading from hard science to social science and on to the arts and even everyday political rhetoric today. Cohen claims that Kuhn had only a very hazy idea of what it might mean and, in line with the American philosopher of science Paul Feyerabend, accuses Kuhn of retreating from the more radical implications of his theory, which are that scientific facts are never really more than opinions whose popularity is transitory and far from conclusive. Cohen says scientific knowledge is less certain than it is usually portrayed, and that science and knowledge generally is not the 'very sensible and reassuringly solid sort of affair' that Kuhn describes, in which progress involves periodic paradigm shifts in which much of the old certainties are abandoned in order to open up new approaches to understanding that scientists would never have considered valid before. He argues that information cascades can distort rational, scientific debate. He has focused on health issues, including the example of highly mediatised 'pandemic' alarms, and why they have turned out eventually to be little more than scares.[41]

See also

References

Citations

  1. ^ Kuhn, Thomas (1962). The Structure of Scientific Revolutions. pp. 54.
  2. ^ Agamben, Giorgio. "What is a Paradigm?" (PDF). Retrieved November 14, 2015.
  3. ^ Kuhn, 1970, p. 114
  4. ^ Kuhn, Thomas (1962). The Structure of Scientific Revolutions. pp. 28.
  5. ^ Kuhn, Thomas (1962). The Structure of Scientific Revolutions. pp. 50.
  6. ^ Kuhn, Thomas (1962). The Structure of Scientific Revolutions. pp. 87.
  7. ^ Kuhn, Thomas (1962). The Structure of Scientific Revolutions. pp. 91.
  8. ^ Quoted in Thomas Kuhn, The Structure of Scientific Revolutions (1970 ed.): p. 150.
  9. ^ Kuhn, Thomas (1962). The Structure of Scientific Revolutions. pp. 157.
  10. ^ Sankey, Howard (1997) "Kuhn's ontological relativism," in Issues and Images in the Philosophy of Science: Scientific and Philosophical dakog ulok Essays in Honour of Azarya Polikarov, edited by Dimitri Ginev and Robert S. Cohen. Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic, 1997. Boston studies in the philosophy of science, vol. 192, pp. 305–20. ISBN 0792344448
  11. ^ Thomas Kuhn, The Structure of Scientific Revolutions (3rd ed.): p. 199.
  12. ^ Kuhn, 1970, pp. 154 and passim
  13. ^ Joutsivuo, T (1997). "[Vesalius and De humani corporis fabrica: Galen's errors and the change of anatomy in the sixteenth century]". Hippokrates (Helsinki): 98–112. PMID 11625189.
  14. ^ Kuhn, 1970, pp. 148 and passim
  15. ^ Paradigm Shifts: Technology & Culture
  16. ^ Kuhn, 1970, p. 157
  17. ^ Kuhn, 1970, p. 155
  18. ^ Trudeau, Richard J (1987). The non-Euclidean revolution. Boston: Birkhäuser. ISBN 978-0-8176-3311-0.
  19. ^ Kuhn, 1970, pp. 151 and passim
  20. ^ Kuhn, 1970, pp. 83–84, 151 and passim
  21. ^ Kuhn, 1970, p. 107
  22. ^ Gleick, James (1988). "Chapter 2:Revolution". Chaos:making a new science. New York: Viking Penguin. p. 35–56. ISBN 0-670-81178-5.
  23. ^ Kuhn, Thomas N. (1972) [1970]. "Logic of Discovery or Psychology of Research". In Lakatos, Imre; Musgrave, Alan (eds.). Criticism and the Growth of Knowledge (second ed.). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. p. 6. ISBN 978-0-521-09623-2.
  24. ^ David Laidler. Fabricating the Keynesian Revolution.
  25. ^ Galbraith, John Kenneth (1975). Money: Whence It Came, Where It Went. Boston: Houghton Mifflin. p. 223. ISBN 978-0-395-19843-8.
  26. ^ Keynes, John Maynard (1936). "The General Theory of Employment, Interest, and Money". Nature. 137 (3471): 366. Bibcode:1936Natur.137..761B. doi:10.1038/137761a0. S2CID 4104514. Mr. Hobson has flung himself with unflagging, but almost unavailing, ardour and courage against the ranks of orthodoxy. Though it is so completely forgotten to-day, the publication of this book marks, in a sense, an epoch in economic thought.
  27. ^ Bordo, Michael D., Schwartz, Anna J. (2008). Monetary Economic Research at the St. Louis Fed During Ted Balbach's Tenure as Research Director. The Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis Review.
  28. ^ James Clackson (2007). Indo European Linguistics: An Introduction. Cambridge University. p. 53.
  29. ^ Schmidt, Sophie C.; Marwick, Ben (28 January 2020). "Tool-Driven Revolutions in Archaeological Science". Journal of Computer Applications in Archaeology. 3 (1): 18–32. doi:10.5334/jcaa.29.
  30. ^ Ralph, Paul (January 2018). "The two paradigms of software development research". Science of Computer Programming. 156: 68–89. doi:10.1016/j.scico.2018.01.002.
  31. ^ Handa, M. L. (1986) "Peace Paradigm: Transcending Liberal and Marxian Paradigms". Paper presented in "International Symposium on Science, Technology and Development, New Delhi, India, March 20–25, 1987, Mimeographed at O.I.S.E., University of Toronto, Canada (1986)
  32. ^ Perez, Carlota (2009). "Technological revolutions and techno-economic paradigms", Cambridge Journal of Economics, Vol. 34, No.1, pp. 185–202
  33. ^ Schroeder, Christopher H. (2009). "Global Warming and the Problem of Policy Innovation: Lessons from the Early Environmental Movement". http://www.lclark.edu/org/envtl/objects/39-2_Schroeder.pdf
  34. ^ See also Stewart Brand#NASA image of Earth
  35. ^ Kung, Hans & Tracy, David (ed). Paradigm Change in Theology. New York: Crossroad, 1989.
  36. ^ Küng, Hans. Theology for the Third Millennium: An Ecumenical View. New York: Anchor Books, 1990.
  37. ^ Robert Fulford, Globe and Mail (June 5, 1999). http://www.robertfulford.com/Paradigm.html Retrieved on 2008-04-25.
  38. ^ Cnet.com's Top 10 Buzzwords
  39. ^ "The Complete Idiot's Guide to a Smart Vocabulary" pp. 142–43, author: Paul McFedries publisher: Alpha; 1st edition (May 7, 2001) Archived December 15, 2007, at the Wayback Machine ISBN 978-0-02-863997-0
  40. ^ Cohen, Martin (2015). Paradigm Shift: How Expert Opinions Keep Changing on Life, the Universe and Everything. Imprint Academic. p. 181.
  41. ^ "Martin Cohen".

Sources