The structure of scientific
revolution
Thomas Kuhn's perspective
The role of scientific tradition
A scientific community cannot practice its
trade without some set of received beliefs. A
PARADIGM must exist.
True or false? Is science the only area that
needs a paradigm? Can ANYTHING function
without a paradigm?
Examples?
What is the role of education?
The nature of the "rigorous and rigid"
preparation helps ensure that the received
beliefs are firmly fixed in the student's mind.
True or false? Is this true with any kind of
education? Is there a difference between
"Beginning" and "more advanced" education?
Examples?
What is the role of research?
Research is about confirming existing
concepts, and exploring their applications.
Research tends to work within a paradigm.
Kuhn says it is "a strenuous and devoted
attempt to force nature into the conceptual
boxes supplied by professional education".
What do you think? Is it always that way?
How does progress occur?
When an anomaly undermines the basic tenets of
the current scientific practice
These tenets and assumptions no longer work
New assumptions must develop
New assumptions –"paradigms" - require the
reconstruction of prior assumptions and the reevaluation of prior facts.
This is difficult and time consuming. Therefore is
also strongly resisted by the established
community.
Scientific revolution
This process is what Kuhn calls a
"scientific revolution", occurring through
paradigm-shift
How do paradigms emerge?
Researchers observe phenomena
Various "pre-paradigmatic"
interpretations emerge and compete
One interpretation seems better than
the others, and gains more and more
adherents
That interpretation becomes a
"paradigm"
After a paradigm is created…
A paradigm transforms a group into a profession or,
at least, a discipline.
From this follows the formation of specialized
journals, the foundation of professional bodies and
a claim to a special place in academe.
There is a promulgation of scholarly articles
"addressed only to professional colleagues, [those]
whose knowledge of a shared paradigm can be
assumed and who prove to be the only ones able
to read the papers addressed to them".
Once a paradigm exists…
It resists change
Why?
Are there paradigms in
psychology?
Which ones?
Examples of paradigms in
psychology
The Cartesian (after Descartes) or
Newtonian paradigm: the person as a
mechanism, as a clock, as a computer
The evolutionary paradigm: the person
in change, as an adaptive organism, in
continuity with the other species
The ecological paradigm: the person as
part of a complex system
There are also "subparadigms"
Paradigms within sub-fields of
psychology.
They dictate what gets published etc.
Why is this relevant to the
history of psychology?
Because also, history is told from a
certain point of view, from a given
paradigm.
What, do you think, are the basic
assumptions of the text we are using?
The end