Introduction to Philosophy of the 20th Century - Essay Example

The structure of scientific revolutions by Khun Thomas, a publication of University of Chicago Press, has influenced the thinking of several people in the 20th century (Kindi, Vasco and Theodore 12). Of all his concepts, the most used and often misused is the paradigm shift which has dominated intellectual discussions as well as organizational talks. Most people, including psychologists, have given comments about the book either as criticism, compliment or just reviews (Naughton). The millions of results produced by a search of the title of the book or even the name of the author are proof enough that Khun has had an impact on the intellectual orientation of the global society. Furthermore, it is one of the most cited books more so in psychology (Naughton).

Is your time best spent reading someone else’s essay? Get a 100% original essay FROM A CERTIFIED WRITER!

Order now

Khun, at an individual capacity, changed the global thinking about the idea of the previously embraced idea of organized attempts to understand occurrences in the world (Naughton). The organized structure of studying the world was based on the scientific method built on a philosophical description of how science is supposed to develop. It also included principles of scientific progress that advocated for the addition of new truths to the pre-existing knowledge. Under very rare circumstances, this theory allowed for correction of mistakes in previous facts (Naughton). So, Khun brought a revolution in a world where scientists and philosophers had made much progress in their quest to build up what they believed was advancing towards the truth (Kindi, Vasco and Theodore 23).

As his book shows, Khun disrupted the flow in the scientific world by disclosing discontinuities in what many experts were convinced to be growing improvement. He reveals revolutionary phases that show instances when researchers were fixed in a state of uncertainty and confusion. A very clear example is the shift from Newton principles of mechanics to quantum physics (Kindi, Vasco and Theodore 31). Although such a transition should have informed scientists of the inadequacies of previous scientific philosophy that believed in progress by accumulation, they just embraced the change and returned to the normalcy of accumulative knowledge (Naughton). May other scientific revolutions took place, but no one was bold enough to dispute the previous belief until Khun established a different view which has turned out to be interesting to almost everyone in the scientific world. His success is attributable to this daring move that he made (Kindi, Vasco and Theodore 34).

Khuns ideas did not develop as smoothly as its 20th-century success may allude. He faced a lot of resistance from renowned scientists and opinion shapers who strongly disputed his view of scientific development. In the early 1960s, his version was full of controversy as it challenged the entirety of existing philosophical assumptions on how science should grow (Naughton). Philosophers found it even harder to consider his argument given the fact that he was not even a philosopher; he was a physicist (Kindi, Vasco and Theodore 41).

John Naughton, a writer who describes Thomas Khun in an article in thegurdian, passionately describes the advances made my Khun in his quest to unearth philosophy in the development of science. He links a description of Khuns career and his theory so vehemently that even a critic of Khun would get convinced by the floor. Khuns philosophy was a discovery from experience as he read old scientific materials to fulfill his mandate of the new role of teaching humanities students a course on science at Harvard. As a physicist, he was never into the history of science (Naughton). Therefore, the new teaching role in Humanities provided the breakthrough into this groundbreaking philosophical discovery (Kindi, Vasco and Theodore 64).

The most remarkable are Khuns encounter with Aristotles scientific work. He studies the works of Aristotle in a bid to establish the extent of mechanics he knew and the foundation he had laid for future scientists to discover (Naughton). Surprisingly, he learned that Aristotle had no idea about the mechanics at all. The materials revealed Aristotles ignorance in mechanics and inadequacies as a physical scientist. He particularly points out concepts of motion that he discovered Aristotles distorted logic and observation which would be out rightly disqualified if brought forth today. No one had made this realization before (Kindi, Vasco and Theodore 68).

From the study of Aristotles work, Khun came to a conclusion that for one to understand scientific advances, he must be familiar with the intellectual framework within which the scientist behind the progress operated (Kindi, Vasco and Theodore 23). He explains this by the illustration that while Aristotle is a genius when people view his scientific findings in the context of his academic framework, he is an idiot if his work is considered by the current standards of physics (Naughton). For instance, in the times of Aristotle, "motion" was defined as general change while todays science describes "motion" as the change in position of a physical body. This insight is the core idea in The Structure of Scientific Revolutions.

Khun splits the development of science into phases. He calls the first step "normal science" in which a pool of scientists with the same intellectual background come together to generate solutions to the anomalies between their predictions and experimental results or observations (Kindi, Vasco and Theodore 99). In this phase, the solution is usually enhancement of the paradigm to match the experimental results or detection of defects in the preliminary findings. In simple, as Ian Hacking describes, normal science does not motivate innovation as it is limited to making discoveries of what it expects to find out (Naughton).

The description of the paradigm shift is what excites and seemingly convinces a majority of psychologists interested in this issue. In his book, Khun says that in the long run, the "common science" that he categorized as the first phase of science development leads to accumulation of unresolved anomalies to the extent that makes some scientists to doubt the paradigm itself (Naughton). Increasing questioning of the model creates a crisis that makes scientists accept to make indefinite trials into finding the real truth. In the process, they express their ultimate discontentment by the paradigm which translates into philosophical reconsiderations and debates over "common science" (Naughton). Finally, a scientific revolution occurs replacing the now-deficient paradigm with a new one that sufficiently addresses the anomalies. This is the paradigm shift.

However, one of the controversies in Kuhns suggestion is the implication that paradigms that are in competition are incommensurable. By this, he Khun implies that there are no criteria to evaluate relative advantages of the competing standards. He gives an example of comparing Newtonian mechanics and quantum mechanics which deal with what occurs beyond the atomic level and at the sub-atomic level respectively. He says that one cannot make a checklist to compare such paradigms (Naughton). This implication contradicts his philosophy of paradigm shift because it is based on such assessments; otherwise, revolutions in science would have to be based on unreasonable grounds. In that case, his paradigm shift would be nullified as a product of mob psychology.

Another concept that he brought forward which has triggered debate over time is the psychology of sociology of science (Kindi, Vasco and Theodore 23). Through his experience, he proves that even scientific facts need to be exposed to thorough scrutiny by communities of scientists just like other disciplines are examined critically. Therefore, sociology of science was acknowledged as essential and incorporated in scientific research as a result (Naughton).

In his critique of the structure of scientific revolution, Mitra dismisses Khuns argument that progress is non-linear as a caricature. Instead, he suggests that development consists of both linear and non-linear perspectives. Mitra declares that the likes of Kuhn are just critics who target the linear progress perspective to appease their hatred for constructive scientific milestones. He disapproves the reference of achievement as Priori numerical which, according to him, is used in Khuns philosophy. Interestingly, he disregards Khuns work as nothing new basing his statement on the argument by Donald Campbell which declares that such evolutionary notions were in print from as early as 1828 (Mitra).

However, Mitra acknowledges the existence of difficulty in communication between scientists and psychologists. Nevertheless, he strongly disagrees with the idea of incommensurability. He says that paradigms are accepted by the majority because they are both scientifically and technologically predictive. According to Mitra, even old paradigms may remain productive therefore their continuance is not due to their incommensurability. If the paradigms of science are incommensurable to each other, he declares, they also ought to be obstinate to the science historian (Mitra).

In contrast to Khuns ideology of development of science, Mitra thinks that the context of real science in not one-dimensional but rather in a multi-modal context. He dismisses Khuns philosophy as a paradigm of paradigms which he declares as only possible if masses professionalize science and if textbooks are standardized by grammar and language (Mitra). Mitra claims this kind of brainwash has only been embraced in the United States of America as such points of view became marginalized in areas like France a long time ago. He says that such ideas have been incorporated because they have got the opportunity to counter existing paradigms.

Despite the in-depth criticism, Mitra acknowledges that Khuns philosophy has been a success. He gives several reasons to clarify that its dominance is not due to its accuracy. First, compared to other paradigms, Khuns work fits to be relatively dominant in anthropology and sociology but in absolute terms, it is not any different. He claims that the idea excited the non- scientists and other scientists who are in soft science. However, this seems and exaggerated criticism since it is clear that Khun was a physicist by profession (Mitra). He had a doctor of philosophy (Ph.D.) in physics which is obviously not a soft science. He, however, proceeds to cover this up by saying that the appeal to professionals in hard sciences is partly due to merely the fact that scientific processes can be non-linear just as Khun explains. He attributes the rest of its persuasive power to the assumption that it is superior as well as satisfying the narcissist scientists. He concludes that it has become putative because it is successful as a result of amplification of small causes other than validity and originality which is not a linear effect (Mitra).

Amidst his criticism, Mitra recognizes some achievements made by Khun through his book. One, he insisted that paradigm is an essential operative scientific principle although Mitra says it would be better if he did it in the absolute terms. Mitra also congratulates him for doing some valuable historical research that is representative of a group of people at Harvard and MIT in the early 1950s. He is also liked for rallying forces against perverted science in the same spirit as Baconian did over the idea of humanities. Mitra finalizes his praise for Khun by acknowledging that he played a significant role in epistemology through thorough agitation (Mitra).

So, Khuns contribution to the philosophy of development of science is insurmountable. Although several psychologists have disputed his claims, especially in the early days while his book was fresh, the paradigm shift ha...