 Thomas Kuhn |  Karl Popper |  Bruno Latour |  Steve Woolgar |
In the making of scientific knowledge Thomas Kuhn would say something seems true until something else seems truer. Karl Popper would say something seems true until it isn’t. Bruno Latour and Steve Woolgar would say something seems true until it doesn’t seem true
In a number of publications, Kuhn explained the growth of scientific knowledge in the form a paradigm. A new way of explaining the physical world grows in popularity. It does so because the gist of the big idea better explains a particular set of conundrums than the previous big idea that had been accepted. The way a new paradigm becomes generally accepted happens as the previous paradigm that seemed to answer well enough, over time, doesn’t answer for all the questions scientists come up with on a given topic. This doesn’t happen right away. Scientists dedicate much effort and time into supporting the established paradigm. Eventually observations begin to raise questions that the established theories can’t answer. At some point some scientist or scientific group (usually newer, younger scientists less committed to the theories of the previous generation) begin to form new ideas to better satisfy the questions not answered by established science. The result is a paradigm shift, a new big theory, and the cycle repeats itself.
In sharing this approach to changing scientific knowledge, Kuhn references Popper. The perspective of the referred to theorist purports the concept of the null-hypothesis. Popper argued that evidence leads to a theory. The theory inspires more experimentation and debate. Eventually the debate leads to attempts to disprove a theory experimentally in the face of growing supportive evidence. With the null-hypothesis approach a scientists looks for at least one way in which the accepted theory does not apply. Once a theory is not true in at least one case, then it is not true.
Latour and Woolgar share works in which they review how some scientific ideas become accepted with or without supporting empirical data. They examine artifacts in the form of scientific journals. Theories gain popularity based on documented evidence (not necessarily proof) as written and published. Popularity of scientific ideas may have as much to do with how articles are written, or the reputation of the journal, authoring scientist, or institution an authoring scientist belongs to, than any actual evidence. There are even specific types of statements used in articles that make the shared ideas more or less likely to be successfully believed by scientific readers. It is entirely possible for a theory to be accepted or rejected by the bulk of the greater scientific society based on the way articles for and against are written. Latour and Woolgar refer to the approach of theory adoption by journal article creation as ‘literary inscription’. It seems scientists, like the rest of us, can be more or less convincing, and more or less convinced, based on subjective factors as much as supposedly objective data.
All of these beliefs about how scientific knowledge changes bring into question if supposed ‘growth’ or ‘advancement’ are fit descriptors. Latour and Woolgar argue ‘fact’ and literary inscription may have congruence, but are not necessarily co-constructive. Their assessment clearly argues in favor of social factors as a guiding influence on what is accepted by the scientific community. Popper argues it is social factors that incentivize scientific torpedoing of theories. Kuhn supports the idea that social factors influence those scientists that adopt and support an established paradigm; an older generation more invested in the old paradigm. Likewise those who seek a new paradigm are influenced by social factors as well; a drive to be the new leaders of scientific industry thought.
In a number of publications, Kuhn explained the growth of scientific knowledge in the form a paradigm. A new way of explaining the physical world grows in popularity. It does so because the gist of the big idea better explains a particular set of conundrums than the previous big idea that had been accepted. The way a new paradigm becomes generally accepted happens as the previous paradigm that seemed to answer well enough, over time, doesn’t answer for all the questions scientists come up with on a given topic. This doesn’t happen right away. Scientists dedicate much effort and time into supporting the established paradigm. Eventually observations begin to raise questions that the established theories can’t answer. At some point some scientist or scientific group (usually newer, younger scientists less committed to the theories of the previous generation) begin to form new ideas to better satisfy the questions not answered by established science. The result is a paradigm shift, a new big theory, and the cycle repeats itself.
In sharing this approach to changing scientific knowledge, Kuhn references Popper. The perspective of the referred to theorist purports the concept of the null-hypothesis. Popper argued that evidence leads to a theory. The theory inspires more experimentation and debate. Eventually the debate leads to attempts to disprove a theory experimentally in the face of growing supportive evidence. With the null-hypothesis approach a scientists looks for at least one way in which the accepted theory does not apply. Once a theory is not true in at least one case, then it is not true.
Latour and Woolgar share works in which they review how some scientific ideas become accepted with or without supporting empirical data. They examine artifacts in the form of scientific journals. Theories gain popularity based on documented evidence (not necessarily proof) as written and published. Popularity of scientific ideas may have as much to do with how articles are written, or the reputation of the journal, authoring scientist, or institution an authoring scientist belongs to, than any actual evidence. There are even specific types of statements used in articles that make the shared ideas more or less likely to be successfully believed by scientific readers. It is entirely possible for a theory to be accepted or rejected by the bulk of the greater scientific society based on the way articles for and against are written. Latour and Woolgar refer to the approach of theory adoption by journal article creation as ‘literary inscription’. It seems scientists, like the rest of us, can be more or less convincing, and more or less convinced, based on subjective factors as much as supposedly objective data.
All of these beliefs about how scientific knowledge changes bring into question if supposed ‘growth’ or ‘advancement’ are fit descriptors. Latour and Woolgar argue ‘fact’ and literary inscription may have congruence, but are not necessarily co-constructive. Their assessment clearly argues in favor of social factors as a guiding influence on what is accepted by the scientific community. Popper argues it is social factors that incentivize scientific torpedoing of theories. Kuhn supports the idea that social factors influence those scientists that adopt and support an established paradigm; an older generation more invested in the old paradigm. Likewise those who seek a new paradigm are influenced by social factors as well; a drive to be the new leaders of scientific industry thought.
|
| ||||
RSS Feed