College Philosophy, Scientific Progress Through Paradigm Shifts, Thomas Kuhn
Scientific revolutions occur in a cyclic fashion, according to Thomas Kuhn. Most of the time, during what Kuhn calls “normal” science, scientists work on small puzzles within one paradigm, steadily developing the concepts of the paradigm. A paradigm is made up of the basic theories and assumptions that the members of a scientific community use in pursuit of their science. A paradigm will reign for some time, but eventually inconsistencies will pop up; scientists will encounter data that seems to contradict the rules of the paradigm. At first, Kuhn says, scientists are most likely to ignore the inconsistent data and label them as “abnormalities.” More contradictory cases will cause the scientists to tweak or redesign the old paradigm to try to accommodate the new data, but eventually the paradigm breaks down completely. When this happens there will be a war between the new paradigms that are competing for the empty slot. It is important to note that while new paradigms that oppose the reigning paradigm may exist prior to the reigning paradigm’s breakdown, they will mostly only be considered by the scientific community at a time when the reigning paradigm is falling apart. The choice of a succeeding paradigm can “never be unequivocally settled by logic and experiment alone,” according to Kuhn. The values and tastes of the scientific and relevant community, scientist bias, and the aesthetic appeal of the paradigm are all factors in the decision-making process.
Many skeptics claim that Kuhn’s theory supports skepticism. If science is nothing but a constant change in knowledge then there can be no truth, says the skeptic. How can we ever be sure of knowledge when knowledge and scientific facts are subject to change? How can we be sure that our reigning paradigms won’t soon meet evidence to disprove them and change the way we view the world? Kuhn argues that no paradigm is better than any other; paradigms are just different. And, if science does not grow progressively but change through revolutions, then the idea of any kind of cumulative knowledge or scientific progress is thrown out the window. Skeptics often use this part of Kuhn’s argument to support their argument that there is no truth. Kuhn also says that scientists are often blinded by the paradigm they are governed by and ignore any evidence that contradicts it, and that the choice of a new paradigm can “never be settled unequivocally by logic and experiment alone.” What he means is that there are inappropriate influences on the choice of a new paradigm. Skeptics are quick to point out that if logic and evidence aren’t the only factors in determining what knowledge we accept as true, we can never really be sure that the current reigning paradigm is the correct one.
While skeptics use Kuhn’s argument to support skepticism, they fail to realize that there is also evidence in Kuhn’s argument to disprove skepticism. For example, if we (like the skeptic) are to believe Kuhn when he says that one scientific theory is no better than any other, just different, then we can apply the principle to extreme skepticism; we have no reason to believe extreme skepticism over any other theory. Second, if new paradigms can explain the phenomena that the first paradigm did, plus some inconsistencies and abnormalities that the old paradigm couldn’t, doesn’t that make the new paradigm better? It seems that each theory is better than the last; science is making progress. Finally, even though scientists may ignore evidence against reigning paradigms at first, eventually the scientific community will give in and address the evidence. Science is not inclined to throw away a fact it once held true (scientists are human, after all), but eventually it will acquiesce.
