Thomas Kuhn: The Structure of Scientific Revolutions

[@ThenNow]

Script & sources at: www.thenandnow.co/2023/05/21/thomas-kuhn-the-structure-of-scientific-revolutions/ ► Sign up for the newsletter to get concise digestible summaries: www.thenandnow.co/the-newsletter/ ► Why Support Then & Now? www.patreon.com/user/about?u=3517018

[@user-he8bz8my3m]

Chapter 4: “Normal Science as Puzzle Making” 1. How does Kuhn explain the enthusiasm scientists show for finding solutions to problems for which the outcome has long been predicted? What does Kuhn thinks drives scientists in these instances? - He compares normal science to solving a puzzle; the excitement lies not in the discovering of something new, and while it is true that some scientists pursue that, most scientists pursue normal science. What drives the them to continue on is the idea that they can only solve the puzzle if they are skillful enough. 2. In chapter 4, Kuhn’s extended puzzle metaphor adds a lot of complications to the common picture of scientists always driving to discover new things. What are some ways that Kuhn thinks working under a paradigm shapes what questions a scientist will think is worth spending time on, or what the community will consider an unscientific question to pursue? - Within the metaphor of a puzzle, Kuhn writes about how puzzles have certain rules which lead to their completion. A jigsaw puzzle, for example, must be put together in a certain way to find “a solution.” Scientists focus on questions to which they can already guess the answer, and which add to the scope and precision of the paradigm from which they sprang. Chapter 5, “The Priority of the Paradigm” 3. *According to Kuhn, which is easier for a historian of science, or scientists themselves: identification the paradigms of a community, or identifying the abstract rules (i.e. the full interpretation and rationalization of the paradigm) which govern the community? Why? - Identification of paradigms of a community, as a paradigm is an accepted solution to a problem, whereas the rules which govern the community spring from an interpretation of the paradigms, over which scientists often disagree, sometimes even unknowingly. 4. How does Kuhn use Wittgenstein’s discussion of the concept of game to explain how scientists might be able to stay within the bounds of their particular normal science tradition without having a completely defined set of rules to guide them? - Wittgenstein’s discussion of the concept of game tells us we understand what somebody means when they use the word game to describe a thing; not because there is a set of characteristics which apply to all games and only games, but because what a person is referring to as a game shares some family resemblance with things we have been taught to call “games.” 5. What are Kuhn’s four reasons for saying that paradigms do in fact determine normal science without having to be interpreted into fully rational rules? Explain each. - 1. There is severe difficulty in determining what the governing rules are, as these rules will only share a family resemblance, which is no better than a paradigm. - 2. The nature of learning science is that any theory must be accompanied by a concrete range of information. The ability to do concrete research, to see tangible results, is enough of a governing body without the derivation of rules. - 3. Rules often crop up when a paradigm is felt to be insecure. However, the rules are unnecessary when the paradigm is agreed upon. - 4. Whereas rules must apply to a broad number of scientific fields and govern them all, the same paradigms can be applied in multiple ways to numerous specializations without any rules at all, in which case a paradigm shift is not so incredibly catastrophic.

[@artofescapism]

my advisor had all of us read this book before starting our master's program, and it really made me think about the process and philosophy of science, and changed how i thought about the research i was doing.

[@theveganqueenofdairy4682]

I read this book for a class (that was fully unrelated to anything STEM) and it really is an impressive account. (I didn't like the foreword, tho) -- I think it'd be great to have first year students (in STEM but also other disciplines) read this so that they get to value their 'outsider' position a little more and are on their toes from the very first day. for example, when I studied chemistry, I never understood why we were talking about weighing gases so much because it was so tedious and boring -- now, it's clear to me that this is simply the basis of modern chemistry and that they needed to introduce that somehow. one reason I didn't like that program was because it seemed devoid of any kind of philosophy, but it was simply well-hidden in all of the 'of course we do it this way' that happens in the first few years.

[@radshiba3345]

Out of curiosity, what foreword did your edition have? And if it's the Ian Hacking one (that is in mine), what were your issues with it?

[@Hurt646]

Excellent summary of Kuhn's position and what it signifies. I hope you'll have more essays on the philosophy of science. Against Method by Feyerabend could be a very interesting follow up.

[@Gvcp117]

I agree! Feyerabend is a great point of view regarding science! Great video btw

[@ramkumarr1725]

I did read Against Method. I also read "The Open Society and its Enemies" by Karl Popper. That is verificationism. It just gives a way of ascertaining what is Science and what is Pseudoscience.

[@Knaeben]

Yes, absolutely. I would very much like to see a video on Feyerabend as well!

[@johnarbuckle2619]

Yes!!! Philosophy of science!!! I'm here for this.

[@chrisroddis8403]

nerd

[@DKonigsbach]

This is one of the most influential books I've ever read.

[@thygovanengeland8758]

"What you are concentrating on, and the tools and instruments you use, makes a huge difference to the results" 10:25 Pretty much hits it right on the nail

[@bilelbr8136]

I am presenting Kuhn's book to the class next week and your video helepd me so much to structure my presentation so thank you a lot !

[@masteroftheart5548]

"There are two kinds of scientific progress: the methodical experimentation and categorization which gradually extend the boundaries of knowledge, and the revolutionary leap of genius which redefines and transcends those boundaries. Acknowledging our debt to the former, we yearn, nonetheless, for the latter." - sid meiers alpha centuri. It was written by Brian Reynolds who was quoted as having read Kuhn and being influenced.

[@OjoRojo40]

Well that's anything but Kuhn :p His whole point is to be against the illustrated idea of science being a methodical experimentation and categorization that drive us to the truth. Even less the idea of an "enlighten" genius. The book shows many examples of how what he calls "revolutionary science" totally breaks old paradigms, showing science is not a gradual accumulation of knowledge towards a supreme goal but a much more chaotic and political endeavor.

[@ericschmidt6129]

Excellent summary and explanation of Kuhn's landmark book. I just began reading his book a week ago and this is a very helpful review of the key points.

[@VictorLopez-qb7qr]

Kuhn is great. I have both The Structure of Scientific Rev. and the Copernican Rev. I think more people from the sciences should read him so I always recommend it to people interested in it.

[@frankpontone2139]

I prefer Kuhn to Popper by far.

[@omwowcom]

Great video, thanks for putting this together! Particularly like the examples of paradigm shifts at 8:12 (discovery of oxygen, and then later Kopernican revolution, Newton, etc)

[@wcropp1]

I’ve been waiting for this one. Kuhn waffles a bit throughout his life regarding the “incommensurability of paradigms.” Personally, I’m more inclined to accept a “soft” form of Kuhn’s thought that allows for some overlap and shared vocabularies. He is a great writer, and it makes for a fun read (if you’re a huge nerd, which, let’s be honest here...we all are). Thanks for another great video, and I, too, am looking forward to a Feyerabend follow up video 👍.

[@Yoshimitsu4prez]

I heard a more recent theory that it evolves as a “mosaic.” So different patches of the mosaic, which would be the equivalent of paradigms here, will advance at different times. But as this happens more, eventually you do have a whole new mosaic/paradigm that doesn’t quite resemble what it was before. I found it a nice way to account for what you’re saying.

[@OjoRojo40]

Nice, one of my favorites authors. Paul Feyerabend is a must too in order to debunk "science" as the dominant political force that drives our epistemological system.

[@TheMar320]

I am looking forward a presentation of Feyerabend's thesis, too.

[@notanothermichael4676]

you either misunderstood him or haven't read Feyerabend if you unironically thinks he aims to "debunk science"

[@samlewis9452]

@Language and Programming Channel He went way further than that! Seeing science as an ideology, he suggested that science was totalitarian in nature and should be undermined. To that end he used Relativism to undermine the scientific method thus concluding that astrology, alternative medicine or witchcraft are just as legitimate areas of research, and deserving of public funds, as science. This extreme Relativism can be seen in a suggestion by a South African student to remove classical mechanics and replace it with witchcraft (kzbin.info/www/bejne/eWq2moWEnsd3Z5Y). This extreme Relativism however goes beyond the dusty halls of academia or the comments section of KZbin. The alternative medicine scene has given rise to the AntiVaxxing community and it is Feyerabend's ideas that are lending weight to exposing children to killer diseases such as measles which can kill, blind or leave a child with severe brain damage. Of course they will use the ideas in 'Against Method' to justify their position saying that their ideas is just another ideology competing with others for legitimacy and so should be taken seriously. Is science just another ideology? It would be good to see a justification of this view point.

[@OjoRojo40]

@@samlewis9452 He's anything but a relativist. That's why he proposes epistemological anarchism as an approach to knowledge. Do you remember the second part of the book?? In the middle of his biff with Imre Lakatos, He makes a very clear statement. Scientific method does not have a monopoly on truth or useful results and EXPLICITLY says we shouldn't spend time listening to charlatans. So you are basically talking bullshit or haven't read him at all. Cheers!

[@OjoRojo40]

@@notanothermichael4676 Are you stupid or you can't read? What he wants is to "debunk "science" as the dominant political force that drives our epistemological system". Not "debunk science". He wants to prove the scientific method does not have a monopoly on truth or useful results.

[@mortalclown3812]

Loved that Kuhn was pals with John E. Mack, M.D. Can only imagine his reaction/input to the field today. Terrific video for this right-brained parvenu. Paz y luz, all.

[@HistoricalPerspectiveRBr]

2:53 While it is true that Kuhn used the term 'disciplinary matrix' it is misleading to suggest that Structures of Scientific Revolutions employs the term. It only occurs in the 1969 postscript in his attempts to disentangle (or as some suggest 'revise') his thoughts on what a paradigm is.

[@navadiskaya]

I have to read Kuhn's book by Thursday. Thank you very much for this informative, intelligent and informative video

[@dianamccandless7094]

It's notable how SLOWLY you speak, and how GOOD that is for my understanding. (Native English speaker, here)

[@robertodangio7234]

The theory that Kuhn develop in Structure of scientific Revolution open the Door at One of most interesting overlook of modern philosophy, that gather theory of knowledge and sociology. Lakatos and Popper saw with despite at social science, but for me this is reason of power of his theory

[@SN-xk2rl]

Kuhn's Structure of Scientific Revolution popularized an empiricist pragmatic approach to philosophy of science. C.S. Pierce was doing this earlier, but didn't put it together in a single volume with a history of science lit review on the front end as flashy decoration.

[@AdrienLegendre]

Very well done! You are an excellent science video journalist.

[@LogicGated]

Inspired me to look more closely at the history in my own field of medicine.

[@gedde5703]

Brilliant, as always

[@timothyogedengbe3380]

I really enjoyed this video. Comprehensive summary and easy to understand.

[@tomdorman2486]

Well done! Very clean explanations. I subscribed, and I'm commenting for that very reason. Thanks

[@Sparhafoc]

Good video, but can I suggest you drop an epilepsy warning for around seven minute thirty mark - the flashing was quite intense.

[@Knaeben]

Whenever I run into an author or idea I want elucidated, I come to this channel to see if there's a video on that topic.

[@thedouglasw.lippchannel5546]

It is easily argued that CIG Theory fits the description of a Paradigm Shift, and a fun one at that! Learn and apply CIG Theory today!

[@rdytogo9803]

Jim keller suggested to read this book, Every engineer need to.

[@ZoiusGM]

4:59 That's not defining a new puzzle and not solving the old one. It is still trying to solve the old puzzle but with different method/solution.

[@PassportGods]

Have had the book for a while. Needed some motivation to get started. Found it!

[@adamstrank5352]

What films did you get your video clips from?

[@annereidy7981]

Very well presented, thank you!

[@user-vg7zv5us5r]

4:20 "Facts, instruments, problems"... And here's math with analytical chemistry. 6:59 "the williness to try anything" - Feyerabend's "anything goes" call.

[@jeyhungasimzada1826]

Great explanation, Thanks for that!!

[@d33deed]

Recommending good book by Thomas Nickles: Thomas Kuhn Contemporary Philosophy in Focus. It basically tells you everything that it's told in this video + much more detailed.

[@bkavoussi]

Excellent topic. I would like to cite this video in my research, but I am sorry, I don't know your name. Thanks.

[@xtrinno2896]

I know it's almost been a year, but his twitter is in the description. His name is Lewis Waller

[@Wonderfeel__]

Thanks for your dedication, and the great communication. Always dig your videos :)

[@creamysauce7966]

Thanks for the video! I'm reading a book about psychology and his name came up so I had to know who he is! (Kuhn)

[@axelsprangare2579]

This is very interesting to me because I believe that everything can be boiled down to a dichotomy.

[@priyakshi.7128]

And doesn't the new paradigm ultimately gets added to the already existing stock of knowledge as we call 'theories & methodologies of science'?

[@xeganxerxes4319]

Popper - suggests a rational approach to the pursuit of silence, acknowledging the contact possibility of falsification and an inability to know truth, despite objective truth existing. Kuhn - language games. Many theories and experiments don’t even fit into a ‘paradigm’. Basic laws of mechanics like Newton’s Laws still work in Realtivity, for example, just not as universals laws. That does not mean Newtonianism has been ‘abandoned’ or is wrong.

[@thedouglasw.lippchannel5546]

CIG Theory is a paradigm shift in Physics and Science.

[@gclttlaichhun2262]

Great explanation, thanks

[@francoisebianchi7282]

Génial penseur de l'évolution de la connaissance scientifique.

[@stefan4706]

Learned more about why/how stuff burns then about Kuhn's philosophy. Brilliant content anyway ;)

[@lsnegurotschka2502]

thanks that helped me studying for an exam :)

[@projectw.a.a.p.f.t.a.d7762]

It's like watching mold grown. It blows up than slow and stenfrhan and increases in size against and so on before it rapidly dies out. We've reached a point where we may be assigning into a new paradym.

[@kasudade]

Nice summary!

[@ByzantineCapitalManagement]

Can you make a video on the unreality of Time by McTaggert

[@keks2199]

I really really like the video, great explanation! Thank you! :)

[@Bisquick]

Awesome. Yeah, I think another contemporary paradigm shift still in progress within physics is quantum mechanics and its general irreconcilability with relativity.

[@stevehodson2613]

Relativity and Quantum Mechanics operate at totally different scales of reality and so are not commeasurable. Kuhn's thesis has nothing to say here and cannot be applied.

[@avilaeduardojr.1977]

Hayyy STS hahahahaha exam namin bukas shutang subject na tohh hahahaha

[@kasudade]

Could you share me the power point of it, please?

[@darrenockhuis11]

Can someone please just explain to me what this video is saying? I'm lost...

[@emkfenboi]

I can help you

[@darrenockhuis11]

@@emkfenboi please I would appreciate it.

[@emkfenboi]

@@darrenockhuis11 have you read this book ? The structure of scientific revolutions.

[@darrenockhuis11]

@@emkfenboi no I haven't, I was told to do a summary of this video as an assignment, but I guess I will buy that book

[@emkfenboi]

@@darrenockhuis11 in my opinion you must read the book, i can give you the PDF of this book if you need.

[@opals0711]

What is this animation!!!! I love it,, does anyone know?

[@TheRafaelPaulus]

Amazing!

[@fercos33]

one I actually read. thanks dude

[@ramkumarr1725]

A good book.

[@fiachrabyrne4952]

What book are the quotes used taken from? if anybody can help please.

[@billsadler3]

The Structure of Scientific Revolutions, 1962

[@goodkawz]

7:09 I came here only to hear a pronunciation of “preparadigmatic”. The pronunciation here isintuitive with the soft “g”. Elsewhere I have heard or seen it with a hard “g” and unexpected pronunciations. Hard g or not hard g? That is the question.

[@wmgodfrey1770]

But, of course, we now know that Gravity is a pushing force, not pulling. Because the universe is constantly expanding. So, heavenly bodies are moving (pushing) away from each other.

[@dionysiandreams3634]

Also check out Michael Polanyi

[@ivanbenisscott]

Brilliant

[@immaculateirlandez2187]

do you have a transcript of this video?

[@jomaricarnites2349]

chars.

[@immaculateirlandez2187]

@@jomaricarnites2349 Oy HAHAHAHAHAHA

[@ThenNow]

On Patreon :)

[@kasudade]

Nice

[@buddhabhumimirror5359]

This book must be renamed as The structure of the European scientific revolution. It has its limits. The book has not recognised the contribution of non-west in scientific progress. There are a lot of examples of paradigmatic shifts in the non-western world like in India or China.

[@jacktravers5049]

Like what?

[@zyyl1949]

Such as?

[@subhuman3408]

Source: "My Imagination"

[@thebutronmethod3942]

@@subhuman3408 Learn. Be open. The world is not a nation, its a living space. Take advantage of all knowledge not just what your representative tells you to believe.

[@alexismarquez3674]

I KNOW THOMAS KUHN BEFORE I VOLUNTEERED FOR FREE IN ZAMBOANGA CITY MEDICAL CENTER HOSPITAL BACK IN 2012

[@sebastiaankampers6651]

No, no ,no the earth is "flodigistan "! A gem af a video 😍

[@perlicelouieorbello1633]

HI SS31

[@ggrthemostgodless8713]

This makes me feel that I have been using the word "paradigm" wrong my whole life. And thus, every tv commentator or news talking head is still using it wrong. Or at least incomplete.

[@ggrthemostgodless8713]

@blah blah mmmmm... but I don't have an issue with the phrase "per se". it is two words really. LOL

[@eorobinson3]

Yes!!!!!!!!!!

[@kinderbakkesknaller1368]

do you think that british "people" still do the accent when no-one is around????@?

[@thedouglasw.lippchannel5546]

CIG Theory resolves many many anomalies.

[@SN-xk2rl]

Ptolemy didn't provide useful info for navigation. The practical activity of navigation for long-distance trade for profit, drove the pursuit of more accurate knowledge about celestial bodies and their movement so as to provide info for navigation was the raison de etre driving the paradigm shift from Ptolemaic world the eventually Newtonian world. the real break-thru came with Kepler. Copernicus made the assertion, Galileo backed it up. So did Tycho Brahe in Denmark. But the new claims were about circular motion and the exact mesures of Brahe couldn't be reconciled with circles. Kepler retroduced the theory and the data, orr abducted the data and theory and landed on ellipitical movement. Then Newton came along and provided an parsimonious and efficient explanation for the elliptical movement, a new force of nature called gravity mediating between mass and distance and explaining the movement of objects. Notably, you can't see gravity itself. You can only see its effects. The generative mechanism is real but not directly observable. Neither Kuhn or Popper ever fully recognize this key part of the reality of how science work. This is especially true of the anti-science postmodern wankers like Bruno Latour, the ethnomethodologists and other reactionary fools. Now days Latour and some others are trying to softly backpedal and claim they weren't really being anti-science, because now it is clear that such anti-science chicanery is a rest stop on the road to fascism, and not some edgy rhizomatic anarchist Actant utopia of lilberation.

[@roxanne6249]

5:00

[@janari64]

Paul Feyerabend ...

[@user-lp7sr4xi2p]

against Method

[@fahdhusseini5husseini299]

بنية الثورات العلمية (توماس كون ). لم يجد شذوذا و لا ظاهرة غريبة عندما أعلن كوبرنيك أن الأرض هي التي تدور حول الشمس و ليس الشمس هي التي تدور حول الأرض بل كانت هناك جملة تساؤلات تدور في ذهنه ، منها أن الجرم الصغير هو الذي يدور حول الجرم الأكبر و ليس الجرم الكبير هو من يدور حول الحرم الصغير ،النموذج الإرشادي هنا لا يعمل حسب مصطلحات توماس كون و معارضة غاليليو لفيزياء ارسطو كانت بسبب المشاهدات و الملاحظات التي تراكمت عند غاليليو ،النموذج الارشادي لم يعان من ازمة و العلم القياسي حتى تلك الفترة كانت يسير سيرا حسنا و ما يسمى بالشذوذ الذي ظهر و استعصى على الحل أتى بعد قرنين من إعلان نيوتن قوانين الحركة و الجاذبية العامة ،فنيوتن خطى الخطوة الأولى نحو القانون الأساسي و هو قانون الجاذبية العامة و أينشتاين لم يفعل شيئا آخر غير توسيع مفهوم الجاذبية عند نيوتن فاضاف على مفهوم نيوتن و لم يكتشف الجاذبية نفسها و الاكتشاف قد يعني تغيرا جذريا و قد لا يعني شيئا على الإطلاق ،فنظرية الجاذبية عند أرسطو حول العناصر الاثقل بل و العناصر الاخف فانطلق من التراب صعودا نحو النار مرورا بالماء و الهواء ،لم تحدث تحولا و بقيت نظريته تتنفس ألفي عام تماما كما بقي الإنسان يتنفس الهواء على الأرض دون بروز شذوذ بدعوللدهشة او يدعو للسؤال مجددا حول ماهية نظرية أرسطو الفيزيائية نفسها و سواء فيما يتعلق باكتشاف الأوكسجين بريسنلي و ابتكار الاوكسيجن لافوازبة او من ثم اكتشاف أشعة اكس او وعاء ليدن ،فالصدفة هنا تظهر و تختفي أمام انظار العلماء ،لا العلم القياسي و لا النموذج الإرشادي هما ما وجها أنظار العلماء او ايقظهم من النوم و لكن هي ظروف التجربة و عناد الصدفة هما ما دفع العلماء إلى التنبه و الاستيقاظ من صحوة الوقائع و إلى القفز نحو المستقبل ، الذي يفسر كل شيء هو الاستمرار و الحوار هو نهر الزمن الذي يجري و يجرف معه الماضي و الحاضر ليصب في بحر المستقبل حيث تتجمع تيارات و مذاهب و مدارس العلم من كل وجهة و من كل اتجاه ،حوار العلماء فيما بينهم و حوار العالم مع تجربته المتكررة و ادواته احيانا هو النبع الذي منه ينبلج نهر العلم و الذي اسمه هنا ايضا نهر الزمن ،الاستمرار هو الخيط او النسيج الذي يخيط منه العلم ثوبه ، يتبدل كلما تحاور العلماء مع الوافع و كلما تحاور العلماء مع بعضهم البعض و الظواهر التي تنشيء كانها شذوذ هي نتبجة الحوار و ليست ظواهر خارج اطار ما يسمى النموذج الإرشادي و العلم القياسي ليس علما قياسيا بقدر ما هو حركة و استمرار و حوار لا ينتهي .. 12/04/21

[@roxanne6249]

4:22

[@danwroy]

That oxygen story is _not_ a paradigm shift.

[@boutheinakorchani8437]

can you explain why so?

[@JasonGoodfellow]

Very good... but what about Karl Marx?

[@alexismarquez3674]

TO MY FIRST COUSIN LIANNE CRISELDA YU. MARQUEZ. I RESPECT YOU A LOT. I KNOW LOUIE LLUSTRISSIMO COURTED YOU LIANNE ❤️ TO MY FIRST COUSIN LIANNE CRISELDA YU. MARQUEZ. YOU CAN BE HAPPY WITH LOUIE LLUSTRISSIMO ♥️ I CARE FOR YOU LIANNE ❤️

[@trinelarson6655]

Kuhn is Swiss name

[@malumeaphe3176]

tried to watch but the compilers of this video are bad at what they are doing, they should consider other careers man. Sies!!!😢

[@jenilpernites7900]

STS

[@Naturehack]

Information monopoly victims

[@vongolapastaonedish9222]

share naman kayo ng reflection dyan. HAHAHAHAHA

[@MrArtaque]

So I guess nothing happened since quantum mechanics?

[@emkfenboi]

yes, only puzzle-solving ( normal science ) is going on , we are still waiting for a Paradigm Shift ( Revolutionary Science ).

[@cowrymoo9785]

pahingi naman ng mga answers sa mga nagmomodule diyan HAHAHA

[@crixenalgo4263]

hHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH

[@jomaricarnites2349]

same HAHAHA

[@z0uLess]

I wonder if paradigmshifts can even happen today with the sciences so institutionalized and the level of work one has to do to even get to the point where anyone would listen to you .. you are effectively being socialized into a school that can only say what their language can say. My bachelors paper was graded C because they didnt understand my argument because I used theory outside their field of expertise. Most of these fields in "hypernormality" (Adam Curtis) are being crowded by women that are high in agreeableness -- it is taking on the form of a religion.

[@goognamgoognw6637]

Another idle man that should be put to work doing real contribution to society.

[@tonefilter9480]

2 words - Karl Popper 😂😂

[@mondo2305]

First

[@eupraxis1]

That text could only be considered revolutionary to an Analytical philosopher. Otherwise, I always found it to be, at best, quaint.

[@Bisquick]

Everything's quaint up on that high horse. Joking aside, I don't think the suggestion is that the text itself is "revolutionary" but rather it is a description _of_ the processes of scientific revolution.

[@samlewis9452]

@@Bisquick I think W_Sindarius has a point. Kuhn's work comes as a reaction to Karl Popper's. Popper was trying to solve the problem of inductivism, first shown by David Hume, by using his Theory of Falsifiability. The short coming of this theory however did not take into account the working practices of scientists themselves. If you have a theory of swans being white and you find a black one, does this mean that induction is wrong. A scientist would say not and instead amend the original theory progressing in small steps towards a description of reality. Popper's critique, although one-sided, did have the effect of undermining the analytic or empirical view of science and this opened the door to Kuhn. Kuhn rejected Popper's idea AND induction and placed an emphasis for scientific progress on paradigm shifts. Whilst this serves as a good model for the scientific revolutions of the 16th-17th centuries as the demands of Capitalism required a better description of reality than what came before, Kuhn's thesis does not explain the scientific progress made since that time. The discovery of the DNA double helix does not fit into Kuhn's ideas nor does the evolution of the theory of thermodynamics both made using the "problem solving" mind set that Kuhn says is not part of scientific progress. Kuhn's work does add to the nails driven into Analytic Philosophy's coffin through the years 1930-1970 but does it explain scientific progress? No it does not.

[@gayfaehrlich]

Great video terrible clips

[@piecesofme8531]

When will we get over this false Germ Theory paradigm??

[@iPhone-wn3wb]

so boring, can't believe I have to write about this for school lmao

[@iPhone-wn3wb]

Thanks for the video though, it helped!

[@roxanne6249]

6:00