Site Loader

Positivism is an country of the societal scientific disciplines that believes that societal scientific discipline and natural scientific discipline should be analysed and understood in the same manner. ( Bilton et al, 1996 ) The intent of this essay is to research two cardinal philosophers ‘ positions on how societal scientific cognition evolves. In the first subdivision of this essay there will be a brief debut to positivism followed by Karl Popper ‘s position of how societal scientific cognition is evolved. Following this, will be an geographic expedition of Thomas Kuhn ‘s positions on how societal scientific cognition is evolved and how this challenges Popper ‘s vision.

Positivists believe that phenomena exist in causal relationships and that these relationships can be through empirical observation observed, tested and measured. ( Bilton et al, 1996 ) Positivists have made a few claims about their specific scientific discipline foremost the impression the ‘The natural and societal scientific disciplines portion a common method ‘ , ( Giddens, 1977 ) proposing that rationalists gain cognition that is merely nonsubjective and have no values. Second they argue that ‘There is a cardinal differentiation between fact and value ‘ . ( Giddens, 1977 ) For rationalists facts are of much more importance than values, as they come from scientific discipline, unlike subjective values which are more individualistic. Positivists believe that merely empirical and logical cognition can do any claim to truth, they believe that all cognition should be straight verifiable. Karl Popper ( 1902-1994 ) who is by and large regarded as one of the greatest philosophers of the twentieth century ( Stanford Encyclopaedia of Philosophy ) challenged anterior rationalists. Popper ‘s position as a rationalist was contested, as he himself classed himself as a ‘critical positivist ‘ instead than a rationalist. ( Stanford Encyclopaedia of Philosophy ) Therefore the impression of Popper ‘s rationalist vision is contested. The ground for agnosticism is that positivism is based on objectiveness and this is tied with pragmatism, Popper claims to be a realist, but if Popper is a realist so should he non believe that there are absolute truths. Popper in his vision of how societal scientific cognition is found suggests that societal scientists should seek to rebut or distort ‘conjectural hypotheses ‘ . For Popper ( Bilton et al, 1996 ) it was non possible to verify a claim to knowledge or theory. He believed that cognition was impermanent and it merely existed every bit long as cipher could distort it. Therefore all claims to knowledge should be tested through defense. Therefore Popper may non be a rationalist but besides may non a realist. Popper ( Bilton et al, 1996 ) believed that societal scientific discipline should be based on deductive, logical logical thinking, although Popper knew that logically there is no manner of guaranting the facts will stay changeless. Popper illustrates this impression when discoursing swans, Popper argues that merely because he ever seen white swans, that does non intend that there are no black swans. If Popper sees one black swan so the theory that there are merely white swans is no longer valid. So for Popper cognition is limited, it is what we do non cognize that is illimitable.

Thomas Kuhn ( 1922-1996 ) , besides an influential philosopher of the twentieth century ( Stanford Encyclopaedia of Philosophy ) offers a different position to how theories and cognition are generated by the societal scientific disciplines, he believed that disproof was non a logical method of societal scientific discipline. Unlike Popper, Kuhn argued that advancement came from scientists deciding more mystifiers, in comparing to Popper ‘s position of ‘problem-solving, invention and geographic expedition ‘ ( Notturno, 2000 ) . Kuhn believed that when more mystifiers were resolved this would bring forth more accurate anticipations within paradigms ( Bailey, 2006 ) . For Kuhn paradigms were defined as ‘universally recognised scientific accomplishments that at a clip provide theoretical account jobs and solutions to a community of practicians ‘ ( Kuhn, 1970 ) . In simpler footings a paradigm can be described as the combination of a given community ‘s beliefs, values, techniques, inquiries and patterns on a specific subject. Paradigms topographic point the guidelines for ordinary, mundane scientific pattern, which Kuhn called ‘normal scientific discipline ‘ , in which societal scientists try to spread out bing theories within the current paradigm. Harmonizing to Kuhn ( Stanford Encyclopaedia of Philosophy ) a mature scientific discipline goes through two alternating stages, ‘normal scientific discipline ‘ and ‘revolutionary ‘ or ‘extraordinary ‘ stages. Harmonizing to Kuhn ( Stanford Encyclopaedia of Philosophy ) these two different stages are qualitatively different. Kuhn describes normal scientific discipline as puzzle-solving. A radical stage begins when a societal scientist comes across a phenomena or issue that can non be explained by the current theories, methods and paradigms of a subject. A cardinal difference in the positions of Kuhn and Popper was that Popper argued that his ‘hypotetico-deductive method ‘ could guarantee ‘objective, value-free, revelation of facts of world. ‘ ( Bilton et al, 1996 ) For Kuhn ( Bilton et al, 1996 ) it is non possible for scientific discipline to be value-free, he argues that societal scientists do non prove theories by merely roll uping discernible ‘facts ‘ that are waiting to be observed and classified, instead the societal scientist ‘goes out ‘ looking for grounds to seek to corroborate their several paradigms. Kuhn argues, ‘the challenge is non to bring out the unknown, but to obtain the known ‘ . ( Bilton et al, 1996 ) This suggests that scientific research in this country is based on a reasonably closed system of thoughts that are self corroborating. For Kuhn ( Bilton et al, 1996 ) a paradigm is a tough system to interrupt, any grounds which could potentially endanger the paradigm and hence the ‘rules of the game ‘ by which the paradigm works is frequently ignored as an anomalousness, so ‘the paradigm is a beginning of opposition to invention in scientific discipline ‘ ( Bilton et al, 1996 ) . Kuhn explains that this does non intend that there is non possibility for invention ; instead an anomalous must be ‘particularly obstinate or striking ‘ so that they force scientists ‘to rise inquiries about recognized beliefs and processs ‘ . ( Bilton et al, 1996 ) If anomalous continue to look without successful solution so ‘the scientific field experiences a period of major rational and societal crisis ‘ which can be solved by the preparation of a ‘new paradigm ‘ , ( Stanford Encyclopaedia of Philosophy ) through the procedure of a scientific revolution. If revolutions are a newer and perchance better signifier of cognition, so they must be in bend something positive, that scientists should welcome. This is besides true for Popper, ( Stanford Encyclopaedia of Philosophy ) as these revolutions can add negative cognition that the relevant theories are false. For Kuhn ( Stanford Encyclopaedia of Philosophy ) both the traditional and Popperian positions in this respect were to be rejected. He believed that advancement could merely be made if the community of the shared paradigm make a strong committedness to there field of enquiry. ( Stanford Encyclopaedia of Philosophy ) Revolutions are non sought after except under highly rare fortunes as there is a significant opposition in trying to rebut cardinal theories. Popper ‘s doctrine requires that ‘a individual reproducible, anomalous phenomenon be adequate to ensue in the rejection of a theory ‘ ( Popper, 1959 ) . In contrast Kuhn argues ( Stanford Encyclopaedia of Philosophy ) a individual anomalous is non plenty to turn out or confute a theory. Alternatively it is of import for these anomalous to look several times and turn out hard to explicate within the current paradigm. Kuhn set out to detect what it was that the mature scientific disciplines possessed that societal scientists lacked. Rather than presume, with Popper, that non-revolutionary scientific discipline was merely a period in which the practicians ran out of bold new thoughts, Kuhn said it was during radical periods in which scientific work broke down. ( Stanford Encyclopaedia of Philosophy )

We Will Write a Custom Essay Specifically
For You For Only $13.90/page!


order now

This essay besides briefly explored the impression that Popper ‘s vision is that of a rationalist and came to the decision that Popper may non needfully hold had a positive vision, but instead the position of a ‘critical positivist ‘ , the essay has looked at Popper and Kuhn ‘s different positions on the development of societal scientific cognition, it has looked at Popper ‘s position that the lone manner in which to vouch truth is to distort beliefs, and how he believed it was non possible to verify a claim to truth. In contrast the essay besides addressed Kuhn ‘s position that the lone manner in which societal scientific cognition evolves is through a series of paradigm displacements. The essay besides looked at how Kuhn ‘s beliefs challenged Popper ‘s beliefs.

Reference List

Bailey, R. 2006. Science, Normal Science and Science Education-Thomas Kuhn and Education. Learning for Democracy, 2 ( 2 ) pp.7-20.

Bilton, T. , Bonnett, K. , Jones, P. , Skinner, D. , Stanworth, M. and Webster, A. 1996. Introductory Sociology. 3rd erectile dysfunction. Hampshire: Macmillan.

Giddens, A. 1977. Studies in Social and Political theory. London: Hutchison.

Kuhn, T.S. 1970. The Structure of Scientific Revolutions, 2nd erectile dysfunction. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.

Notturno, M. 2000. Science and the unfastened society: The hereafter of Karl Popper ‘s Philosophy. Budapest: Cardinal University Press

Stanford Encyclopaedia of Philosophy. 2004. Thomas Kuhn. [ on-line ] Available at: hypertext transfer protocol: //plato.stanford.edu/entries/thomas-kuhn/ [ Accessed March 15 2010 ] .

Stanford Encyclopaedia of Philosophy. 2010. Karl Popper. [ on-line ] Available at: hypertext transfer protocol: //plato.stanford.edu/entries/popper/ [ Accessed March 14 2010 ] .

Bibliography

Bailey, R. 2006. Science, Normal Science and Science Education-Thomas Kuhn and Education. Learning for Democracy, 2 ( 2 ) pp.7-20.

Bilton, T. , Bonnett, K. , Jones, P. , Skinner, D. , Stanworth, M. and Webster, A. 1996. Introductory Sociology. 3rd erectile dysfunction. Hampshire: Macmillan.

Giddens, A. 1977. Studies in Social and Political theory. London: Hutchison.

Kuhn, T.S. 1970. The Structure of Scientific Revolutions, 2nd erectile dysfunction. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.

Kuhn, T.S. 1977. The Essential Tension: Selected Surveies in Scientific Tradition and alteration. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press

Moses, J and Knutsen, T. 2007. Wayss of knowing, Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.

Notturno, M. 2000. Science and the unfastened society: The hereafter of Karl Popper ‘s Philosophy. Budapest: Cardinal University Press

Popper, K.R. 1975. The logic of scientific find, London: Hutchison

Sandar, Z. 2000. Thomas Kuhn and the scientific discipline wars. Cambridge: Icon Books.

Stanford Encyclopaedia of Philosophy. 2004. Thomas Kuhn. [ on-line ] Available at: hypertext transfer protocol: //plato.stanford.edu/entries/thomas-kuhn/ [ Accessed March 15 2010 ] .

Stanford Encyclopaedia of Philosophy. 2010. Karl Popper. [ on-line ] Available at: hypertext transfer protocol: //plato.stanford.edu/entries/popper/ [ Accessed March 14 2010 ] .

Stove, D.C. 1982. Popper and After: Four Modern Irrationalists. Oxford: Pergamon Press.

1

Post Author: admin

x

Hi!
I'm Tamara!

Would you like to get a custom essay? How about receiving a customized one?

Check it out