The Structure of Scientific Revolutions

The Structure of Scientific Revolutions by Thomas Kuhn, an analysis of the history of science .   The publication was a milestone in the history , philosophy and sociology of science.   The work took a continuing global assessment in progress - even beyond the scientific communities.   In this work Kuhn challenged the then prevailing view of progress in the " normal science "out.   He pleaded for an episodic model in which periods of such conceptual continuity in the normal science interrupted by periods of revolutionary science.   During the revolutions in science lead to the discovery of anomalies to a whole new paradigm, that the rules of the game and the "agenda", who directs new research, changing and posing new questions to old data.   It goes beyond solving puzzles in the normal science.



Contents
*Phases 1  ==Phases <span class="mw-editsection-bracket" style="color:rgb(85,85,85);">[  edit <span class="mw-editsection-bracket" style="color:rgb(85,85,85);">] == <p style="margin-top:0.5em;line-height:22.3999996185303px;color:rgb(37,37,37);font-family:sans-serif;font-size:14px;">Scientific progress was seen primarily as a continuous increase in collections of generally accepted facts and theories, standing on the shoulders of giants . Kuhn argued that breakthroughs do not come about through normal science, but in response to deviations from the expectations based on existing theories and actual observations . In addition, he distinguished several phases. ===Normal science <span class="mw-editsection" style="-webkit-user-select:none;font-size:small;margin-left:1em;line-height:1em;display:inline-block;white-space:nowrap;unicode-bidi:-webkit-isolate;"><span class="mw-editsection-bracket" style="color:rgb(85,85,85);">[  edit <span class="mw-editsection-bracket" style="color:rgb(85,85,85);">] === <p style="margin-top:0.5em;line-height:22.3999996185303px;color:rgb(37,37,37);font-family:sans-serif;font-size:14px;">Most scientists enterprises normal science, what Kuhn calls solving puzzles. It expands while on existing theories. ===Anomalies <span class="mw-editsection" style="-webkit-user-select:none;font-size:small;margin-left:1em;line-height:1em;display:inline-block;white-space:nowrap;unicode-bidi:-webkit-isolate;"><span class="mw-editsection-bracket" style="color:rgb(85,85,85);">[  edit <span class="mw-editsection-bracket" style="color:rgb(85,85,85);">] === <p style="margin-top:0.5em;line-height:22.3999996185303px;color:rgb(37,37,37);font-family:sans-serif;font-size:14px;">Each theory has perceptions that are different from existing theories. Now there are always anomalies, but that does not mean that a theory is specified directly. Kuhn's paradigms are only rejected if others are available. Many anomalies are solved by normal science. ===Crisis <span class="mw-editsection" style="-webkit-user-select:none;font-size:small;margin-left:1em;line-height:1em;display:inline-block;white-space:nowrap;unicode-bidi:-webkit-isolate;"><span class="mw-editsection-bracket" style="color:rgb(85,85,85);">[  edit <span class="mw-editsection-bracket" style="color:rgb(85,85,85);">] === <p style="margin-top:0.5em;line-height:22.3999996185303px;color:rgb(37,37,37);font-family:sans-serif;font-size:14px;">If normal science, however, is not capable to solve these anomalies, a crisis may arise, a period of discomfort for most scientists by the realization that the existing paradigm is inadequate. For some scientists, is this a period of real science and existing concepts and paradigms can be aborted. Scientific knowledge is not growing gradually and does not only advance as was previously assumed, but also knows decline. ===Scientific revolution <span class="mw-editsection" style="-webkit-user-select:none;font-size:small;margin-left:1em;line-height:1em;display:inline-block;white-space:nowrap;unicode-bidi:-webkit-isolate;"><span class="mw-editsection-bracket" style="color:rgb(85,85,85);">[  edit <span class="mw-editsection-bracket" style="color:rgb(85,85,85);">] === Kuhn  used the 'duck-konijn' figure ofJastrow to make clear that a paradigm shiftaffects the way of observing. At the individual level there is then a Gestalt switch .<p style="margin-top:0.5em;line-height:22.3999996185303px;color:rgb(37,37,37);font-family:sans-serif;font-size:14px;">By breaking down existing beliefs create space for new insights, a new conceptual framework . Kuhn calls this a paradigm shift or scientific revolution . He compares this to the phenomenon of Gestalt switch from psychology . ==<span class="mw-editsection" style="-webkit-user-select:none;font-size:small;margin-left:1em;line-height:1em;display:inline-block;white-space:nowrap;unicode-bidi:-webkit-isolate;font-family:sans-serif;"><span class="mw-editsection-bracket" style="color:rgb(85,85,85);">[Incommensurability  edit <span class="mw-editsection-bracket" style="color:rgb(85,85,85);">] == <p style="margin-top:0.5em;line-height:22.3999996185303px;color:rgb(37,37,37);font-family:sans-serif;font-size:14px;">Popper had argued that theories or tested must be through falsification , in practice this is not according to Kuhn and solves one particular puzzles. According to Popper would urge the success of a so crucial test question of corroboration, the theory is strengthened. Kuhn, however, that the crucial test was not possible because each paradigm has its own conceptual framework in which the test has a different value, Kuhn incommensurability called.
 * 1.1 Normal science
 * 1.2 Anomalies
 * 1.3 Crisis
 * 1.4 The Scientific Revolution
 * 2 incommensurability
 * Example 3
 * 3.1 The Copernican revolution
 * 4 Literature
 * 5 Footnotes

<p style="margin-top:0.5em;margin-bottom:0.5em;line-height:22.3999996185303px;color:rgb(37,37,37);font-family:sans-serif;font-size:14px;">Also from the Duhem-Quine thesis follows that there is no common language is neutral, from which objective facts must be decisive. According to this theorem, it is not possible to test a single hypothesis, since it is not clear exactly what part of the hypothesis is put to the test.

<p style="margin-top:0.5em;margin-bottom:0.5em;line-height:22.3999996185303px;color:rgb(37,37,37);font-family:sans-serif;font-size:14px;">There is no logical compelling reasons to choose, according to Kuhn does not mean there are no good reasons to prefer a theory. It also does not mean that there is no objective reality exists, but only if they can be described not entirely correct because the Duhem-Quine thesis. ==Example <span class="mw-editsection" style="-webkit-user-select:none;font-size:small;margin-left:1em;line-height:1em;display:inline-block;white-space:nowrap;unicode-bidi:-webkit-isolate;font-family:sans-serif;"><span class="mw-editsection-bracket" style="color:rgb(85,85,85);">[  edit <span class="mw-editsection-bracket" style="color:rgb(85,85,85);">] == ===The Copernican revolution <span class="mw-editsection" style="-webkit-user-select:none;font-size:small;margin-left:1em;line-height:1em;display:inline-block;white-space:nowrap;unicode-bidi:-webkit-isolate;"><span class="mw-editsection-bracket" style="color:rgb(85,85,85);">[  edit <span class="mw-editsection-bracket" style="color:rgb(85,85,85);">] === Basic elements of thePtolemaic system <p style="margin-top:0.5em;line-height:22.3999996185303px;color:rgb(37,37,37);font-family:sans-serif;font-size:14px;">The most famous example of a revolution in scientific thinking put Copernicus in motion with his book The Revolutionibus Orbium Coelestium . In the until then prevailing school of thought of Claudius Ptolemy was one of a stationary Earth at the center of the cosmos . For the modeling of the movements of the planets, use was made ​​of cycles and epicycles . As over the centuries increased the accuracy of the observations of the planets, they were also forced to take admit the complexity of the Ptolemaic epicycle cykel- and mechanisms. This was necessary in order to keep the Ptolemaic model using the calculated positions in the vicinity of the observed positions.

<p style="margin-top:0.5em;margin-bottom:0.5em;line-height:22.3999996185303px;color:rgb(37,37,37);font-family:sans-serif;font-size:14px;">Copernicus proposed his revolutionary work in a new cosmology, in which he is not the Earth but the Sun postulated in the center of the cosmos. The Earth was in his model only one of the planets revolved around the sun. For modeling the planetary motions in his cosmos Copernicus used the tools he was familiar with, namely the cycles and epicycles to the Ptolemaic toolbox. Copernicus's model, however, proved more cycles and epicycles to need than there were in use within the then prevailing Ptolemaic model. As a result of a lack of accuracy in its calculations, it was found that the predictions of Copernicus were not more accurate than that of the competing Ptolemaic model. The result was that many of the contemporaries of Copernicus his new cosmology rejected. Kuhn argued that they were within their legal rights to do so: it lacked Copernicus' cosmology the necessary credibility.

<p style="margin-top:0.5em;margin-bottom:0.5em;line-height:22.3999996185303px;color:rgb(37,37,37);font-family:sans-serif;font-size:14px;">Kuhn shows in his book how a paradigm shift later still became possible when Galileo Galilei new ideas about motion introduced. Intuitively, one can imagine that when an object is moving quickly put it back to stopcoming. A well-made car can, for example over a large distance move before it comes to rest, but unless someone pushes, he will still eventually stop moving. Aristotle argued that this is probably a fundamental property of nature was, to an object in motion hold, it had to be constantly "pushed". Given the knowledge available at the time this was a sensible and reasonable thought.

<p style="margin-top:0.5em;margin-bottom:0.5em;line-height:22.3999996185303px;color:rgb(37,37,37);font-family:sans-serif;font-size:14px;">Galileo came up with an alternative bold conjecture: suppose he said that all objects we see around us come to a halt only do this because some friction occurs. Galileo had no instruments at his disposal which he his presumption on an objective way was able to confirm, but it nevertheless suggested that in the absence of any friction, the inherent tendency of the object is to provide the speed to maintain without the need for any additional force acts on the object.

<p style="margin-top:0.5em;margin-bottom:0.5em;line-height:22.3999996185303px;color:rgb(37,37,37);font-family:sans-serif;font-size:14px;">The Ptolemaic approach to the use of cycles and epicycles began increasingly to resemble a far-fetched interpretation: there seemed no end to the increasingly rapid growth of complexity that was needed to explain the observable phenomena. Johannes Kepler was the first person rejected the instruments of the Ptolemaic paradigm. He began to explore the possibility that the planet Mars an elliptical orbit rather than a circular orbit around the Sun described. It was clear that the angular velocity in such a case could not be constant, but it appeared to be very difficult to get the formula to find the rate of change of the angular velocitydescribed. After many years of calculations, Kepler finally found what we now know as the second law of Kepler .

<p style="margin-top:0.5em;margin-bottom:0.5em;line-height:22.3999996185303px;color:rgb(37,37,37);font-family:sans-serif;font-size:14px;">Galileo's conjecture was just that - an assumption. The same applied to the cosmology of Kepler. But any suspicion elevated in this case, the credibility of the opposite presumption. Together they changed the prevailing views of the scientific community. Later, Newton shows that the three laws of Kepler can be derived from a single theory of motion and planetary movement. Newton foresaw the paradigm shift that Galileo and Kepler had put in motion a rock solid foundation.