Thomas S. Kuhn has really explained the nature and necessity of Scientific Revolution in an amazing way that makes my mind spin with both negative and positive questions on the subject.
Scientific Revolution refers to a series of events that marked the resurrection of modern-day science. In this essay I would like to give my opinion in line with Kuhns’ hypothesis on the nature and necessity of this Scientific Revolution. The history of science revolution has experienced differences on whether ideas should be considered scientific ideas. Disagreements between social scientists about the nature of legitimate scientific problems and methods.
In my view, science would be science either its natural science or social science. The most important point is to know the role of scientific research models called paradigms which helps to classify an idea as a scientific idea.One aspect about these paradigms in modern science is that they have external factors influencing their results, that is social, economic, intellectual conditions and technological advancements.
If nothing is said about the role of these external factors in the development of the sciences with a claim that they will translate a small anomaly into a source of acute crisis, that’s not right in this fast-moving century.However, what are these scientific revolutions, and what is their function in scientific development? Can it be those non-cumulative developmental components in which an older paradigm is replaced in whole or in part by an incompatible new one. For a paradigm to replace an older paradigm it does not matter if its compatible or incompatible. The main focus is to ensure that the new model solves a problem, adds something new to the older paradigm or brings in totally new developments. If I observe how political revolutions are initiated by a growing sense, I observe that a paradigm strength in a given environment reduces to function due to new demands from that specific political community. The demands of a political community changes fast due to a fast-changing environment, due to this we must have a political revolution to achieve stability. Scientific revolutions also are inducted by a growing sense, which points to a scientific community, that existing paradigm has ceased to function sufficiently in the examination of an aspect of nature to which that paradigm itself had previously been the solution.
I also note that, in both political and scientific development the sense of failure that can lead to crisis is a requirement to revolution.The historical study of standard change reveals very similar characteristics in the evolution of the sciences. When I look at the choice between competing paradigms, it proves to be a choice between incompatible models. Because a paradigm must enter into a debate about paradigm choice, their role is necessarily circular. Each group uses its own paradigm to argue in that paradigm’s defense. Through such a debate a new paradigm gets a chance to provide a clear exhibit of what scientific practice will be like for those who adopt the new view of nature.One thing should be noted is that this issue of paradigm choice can never be unequivocally settled by logic and experiment alone. This is because the evidences shared by the two groups on which paradigms debate can never be sufficiently extensive to have a concrete conclusion.
Therefore, to discover how scientific revolutions are affected, the techniques of persuasive argumentation effective within the quite special groups that constitute the community of scientists must also be examined.Before a new paradigm is considered or rejected, what must therefore be considered first is that such examples provide essential information about the nature of science. A good invention or process is to ensure that the evolution of science new knowledge would replace ignorance rather than replace knowledge of another and incompatible sort. So, in my understanding a new model should not replace knowledge, should provide essential information about the nature of science, should be a building unit of science and should be in harmony with the scientific community. On the subject of cumulation in science, I would like to state categorically that science is cumulative and nothing else. The ideology that some new model can render the older model irrelevant it’s just a fallacy. This is because for a new paradigm to replace an older one, a cross check and a cross referencing must be undertaken.
This mean the new model is dependent on the older model, without it, it would not have been invented. Incase a new pattern is invented and does not replace any model, its independent, then on its own it becomes a growth in science, confirming the cumulative nature of science. In case one is struggling to solve a problem observed from an existing model, a proper research has to be done. Proper designed tools and a direct thought will be used to achieve amicable solution. The out come may be true or false depending on the findings. I have noted in this process that several paradigms are involved, we have the one disclosing the anomaly, the one finding the solution to the anomaly and another to render the anomaly lawlike. When any of these paradigms is approved it also renders science cumulative in nature.
From the above example I note that there is no other operative way in which discoveries might be created. The same argument applies even more clearly to the invention of new theories. A theory can be developed only in three ways.
One, an existing paradigm can explain exhaustively a phenomenon which makes it a point of reference to new model construction. Secondly, you can have a spectacle that is well explained by an existing paradigm but for understanding of its content further articulation must be done. Here the research has to undergo serious and deep research in articulating the existing paradigms rather than at the invention of new one. Lastly, this third option normally becomes the last option, where the identified anomalies functions cannot be assimilated to existing paradigms. Such a scenery gives rise to new theories. This tendency of a new paradigm destructing an older paradigm does not affect the cumulative nature of science in any way. The new paradigm could not have been in place without the existence of the older model.
All existing paradigms would be a source, base or point of reference in construction of new paradigms. For example, the caloric theory had been rejected and the energy conservation become part of science. In the spirit of positivism, the paradigm is not rejected by its descendants but rather restricted to the range and meaning of the theory so that it does not conflict with any other future model that made the same natural predictions. In creation of a new science building block, it should be never declared the final but rather it should just solve a problem observed in the scientific community. This will help in avoiding future conflicts when trying to implement a new model in science. I stated before science is cumulative, a paradigm should never put a stop to future inventions. The building blocks of scientific revolution are interrelated with each other. A researcher has the freedom to use a previous theory in their new development.
Science is a unified entity. Prohibiting scientist from using the already existing science to build new paradigms is unacceptable. On the subject of transformation between successive paradigms their differences are both necessary and incompatible. This is not a problem but rather shows growth of science from one environment to another. The environment is changing and so should science grow to meet the demands and solve the imminent problems. History of science has noted an interesting behavior of a continued increase in the maturity and refinement of man’s commencement of the nature of science. From this I can confidently conclude the nature of scientific revolution. Its builds on the foundations of knowledge cumulatively.
Due to the drastic change in environmental patterns new demands originates and requires science attention. Science is also surrounded by external factors which influence the need for growth. Advancement of technology is one of the external factors demanding input from science. As research is done to address such issues, science revolution is experienced. Science revolution is very important as it addresses all scientific issues in a scientific community.
I settle my treatise by saying science is cumulative! Science revolution is very integral in science development. Researchers should always have the freedom to use information from existing paradigms to develop new Models.
