Kuhn's emphasis onscientific practices, relative to the philosophical state of play inthe 1960s, takes up some of the slack left by the rejection of strongrealism. His emphasis on skilled practice may have been influenced byMichael Polanyi's Personal Knowledge, with its “tacitknowing” component, although Kuhn always denied that he likedPolanyi's book (see, e.g., Baltas et al., 2000, pp. 296f).
If there have been so many revolutions, then why did the world have towait for Kuhn to see them? Because, he said, they are largelyinvisible. For after a revolution the winners rewrite the history ofscience to make it look as if the present paradigm is the brilliantbut rational sequel to previous work. The implication is that onlysomeone of Kuhn's historical sensitivity could be expected to noticethis. (Skeptical critics reply that Kuhn invented the problem forwhich he had a solution.) Indeed, in his large book on the history ofthe early quantum theory, Kuhn moved the origin of the quantum theoryrevolution from Planck in 1900 five years forward to Einstein andEhrenfest in 1905 (Kuhn 1978). Revisionist historiography by whiggishscientists, he claimed, had smoothed out the actual history bycrediting Planck with a solution that he actually rejected at the timeto a problem that he did not then have—and by diminishing thetruly radical contribution of Einstein. Kuhn's move again raises thequestion whether the authors of a revolution must knowingly break fromthe received research tradition.
At the end of Structure Kuhn drew an analogy between thedevelopment of science and evolutionary biology. This was surprising,since ‘evolution’ is commonly employed as a contrast termto ‘revolution’. Kuhn's main point was that evolutionramifies rather than progressing toward a final goal, yet itsdegree of specialization through speciation can be regarded as a sortof progress, a progress from a historically existing benchmark rather than aprogress toward a preordained, speculative goal. So specialization is an indicator ofprogress. As for revolutions, they correspond to macromutations.
Phase 2- , begins, in which puzzles are solved within the context of the dominant paradigm. As long as there is consensus within the discipline, normal science continues. Over time, progress in normal science may reveal anomalies, facts that are difficult to explain within the context of the existing paradigm. While usually these anomalies are resolved, in some cases they may accumulate to the point where normal science becomes difficult and where weaknesses in the old paradigm are revealed.
The beginning of the scientific revolution, the Scientific ..
Phase 1- It exists only once and is the , in which there is no consensus on any particular . This phase is characterized by several incompatible and incomplete theories. Consequently, most scientific inquiry takes the form of lengthy books, as there is no common body of facts that may be taken for granted. If the actors in the pre-paradigm community eventually gravitate to one of these conceptual frameworks and ultimately to a widespread consensus on the appropriate choice of , and on the kinds of that are likely to contribute to increased .
The Scientific Revolution - Definition - Concept - History
In any community of scientists, Kuhn states, there are some individuals who are bolder than most. These scientists, judging that a exists, embark on what Kuhn calls , exploring alternatives to long-held, obvious-seeming assumptions. Occasionally this generates a rival to the established framework of thought. The new candidate paradigm will appear to be accompanied by numerous anomalies, partly because it is still so new and incomplete. The majority of the scientific community will oppose any conceptual change, and, Kuhn emphasizes, so they should. To fulfill its potential, a scientific community needs to contain both individuals who are bold and individuals who are conservative. There are many examples in the history of science in which confidence in the established frame of thought was eventually vindicated. It is almost impossible to predict whether the anomalies in a candidate for a new paradigm will eventually be resolved. Those scientists who possess an exceptional ability to recognize a theory's potential will be the first whose preference is likely to shift in favour of the challenging paradigm. There typically follows a period in which there are adherents of both paradigms. In time, if the challenging paradigm is solidified and unified, it will replace the old paradigm, and a will have occurred.
As a paradigm is stretched to its limits, — failures of the current paradigm to take into account observed phenomena — accumulate. Their significance is judged by the practitioners of the discipline. Some anomalies may be dismissed as errors in observation, others as merely requiring small adjustments to the current paradigm that will be clarified in due course. Some anomalies resolve themselves spontaneously, having increased the available depth of insight along the way. But no matter how great or numerous the anomalies that persist, Kuhn observes, the practicing scientists will not lose faith in the established paradigm until a credible alternative is available; to lose faith in the solvability of the problems would in effect mean ceasing to be a scientist.
it may seem to undermine the very notion of a Scientific Revolution
According to J. L. Hammond, the effects of the Industrial Revolution brought masses of people from the rural centers to the city urban centers. It led to higher standards of living, as inexpensive manufactured goods came on the market. It increased trade between nations. On the other hand, the revolution, in its early days, brought exploitation of workers. There were overcrowding that led to diseases which were the 1st time England had experienced this. There were slums and great suffering as a result of periodic unemployment. The wonders of modern science are a result of the Industrial Revolution, but so are the horrors of modern war. In economics, the revolution brought on the rise of capitalism and also of socialism and communism between Adam Smith and Karl Marx. Labour unions, social legislation, government regulation were all outgrowths of the Industrial Revolution.