Thomas Kuhn vs. Nancy Cartwright
Kuhn has makes some interesting claims about how the history of science and its progress be viewed that go against the traditional cumulative view of knowledge in which knowledge is simply added to our pool of understanding and the view that different theories can be compared rationally. Kuhn’s claims are largely against what Carnap believes to be true about how science progresses. Carnap holds the traditional view that knowledge is cumulative and there is a rational method in which theory selection can occur. Although Kuhn’s claims are unconventional, he manages to give them strength by good examples and logical thinking.Kuhn’s main claim is that there is no methodology in choosing any particular paradigm. Kuhn views science as being in one of two phases: “normal science” or “scientific revolution”. While most of the time is spent in “normal science” where knowledge is cumulative, his main claim applies during “scientific revolution”. During “normal science” scientists, to provide explanations for current phenomenon, use a paradigm to guide their research. The paradigm governs the way the scientists think about their research; thus affecting their methods, interpretations, and other theories used as a reference for their resear . . .
According to Carnap, every theory is judged on its degree of confirmation. Drawing on that, we can also conclude that since they cannot be compared, you cannot move elements between the two. Secondly, it can be derived from Carnap’s argument that science is cumulative, unlike Kuhn’s view that science is non-cumulative. During that shift, all the ideas of light being composed of particles were dropped for thos! e that used the idea that light was transverse waves. Because these two paradigms have completely different ways of viewing the world and they share no common basis on which they overlap one cannot rationally compare the two and decide which paradigm is better than the other. Kuhn, on the other hand, believes that there is no logical reason for choosing one paradigm over the other because the shifts occur for many reasons that cannot be reduced to simple logic or some ideas of confirmation or falsification (Zucker, 159). History gives us a clear example supporting Kuhn’s belief during the shift from the corpuscular theory of light to the wave theory of light. Therefore, if the elements are not movable, there is no way that the knowledge can accumulate and science is deemed non-cumulative. Historically, as soon as an anomaly has been encountered, the only way around it was to create a whole new view of the world; thus discarding all the previous knowledge. Carnap believes in methodology in theory selection and cumulative science, while Kuhn believes in the lack of both (class notes). Thus, the acceptance of a new theory depends on the degree of confirmation it has been given. The more conditions in which a theory is true, the more confirmed it becomes. In addition, two you cannot simply move elements from the old paradigm to the new paradigm because there is no common level on which the two paradigms overlap. Still, in complete contradiction with Carnap’s view of the history of science and theory selection, the Ptolemaic theories were discarded for some unknown reason.
Common topics in this essay:
, Kuhn Carnap, Zucker Secondly, According Carnap, Kuhn Carnaps, highly confirmed, theory selection, carnap believes, Inc Jersey, view world, class notes, normal science, paradigm change, history science, Zucker Carnap, reduced simple logic, kuhn views science, theory light, paradigm explain anomaly, research paradigm, develop paradigm explain, simple logic ideas, |
Acceptance Essays
