Day 2 Historiography

In Chapter 6 "Anomaly and the Emergence of Scientific Discoveries" Kuhn describes "normal" science as a "puzzle-solving" activity because it's through the aggregation and accumulation of related experiments and discoveries that the overall picture of a true theory or paradigm emerge. That is, various pieces of the puzzle have to fall into place over time before the entirety can be recognized and appreciated for what it is. It is also difficult to define the act of discovery for this reason. Kuhn gives examples of scientists "discovering" x-rays, oxygen, or nuclear fission and not recognizing what they had done or being able to fit it into the context of their level of understanding at the time. As Kuhn points out, Lavoisier, Priestley, Scheele, and even others could all lay claim to "discovering" oxygen. A paradigm is a set of values, concepts,and assumptions that constitute the way a community views reality, referring here of course to the scientific community. A change in paradigm would be a shift in expectations radical enough to alter our overall viewpoint of a situation, or enough anomalies manifesting themselves that a total revamping of the paradigm is needed. This then calls for the development of more specialized and advanced equipment, vocabulary, skills, and concepts to further pursue anomalies against the backdrop of the new paradigm. I appreciate Kuhn's explanation of how science works and develops through time. He crystallized for the reader how the restriction of a current paradigm allows new discoveries to cumulatively bring about new paradigms, driving the engine of scientific discovery. I enjoyed this selection and will go ahead and read the entire volume.

In Chapter 13 "Progress Through Revolutions" Kuhn discusses science education. He describes how in music, art, literature, history, and the social sciences students learn by being exposed to the works of other artists or researchers, developing their own ideas and works, with textbooks playing a limited role. In science however we rely almost exclusively on textbooks, at least until we start doing our own research, sometimes not until the level of graduate school. He does note that in general this type of science education has been successful, because it grounds and immerses the student in the rigid paradigms of the time, and makes the flexible scientific community able to take notice and make changes as necessary, at least in the long-term and big-picture. I don't agree with his idea that a student of physics doesn't need to read original works just because he has a textbook that summarizes them. I have always believed the sooner a student starts doing their own research, both in the library and the laboratory, the better off they are as developing scientists, and the better equipped they are to draw their own conclusions.

In conclusion Kuhn's main points were that science discovery is a process involving the creation of new paradigms as anomalies are found and that history of science unto itself is an essential component in science education. He used historical examples and comparisons to other disciplines to support his points. Most interesting to me was the idea that due to the nature of science it is difficult to point to specific examples of discovery, as it is a cumulative and ongoing process. This reading applies to me as an educator because I have always tried to stress the history and process of science by utilizing research papers, historical accounts, and Scientific American while deemphasizing an over-dependence on the textbook.

Bibliographic Note:

Thomas S. Kuhn, The Structure of Scientific Revolutions, (Chicago, University of Chicago Press, 1996). This book deals with the history of science and science as a process but it applies to many disciplines.