In my paper I will argue on the progression of science under the lense of both Thomas S. Kuhn and Helen Longino. Both Kuhn and Longino put forth respective argument on both how scientific knowledge is produced and how it goes on to progress. Kuhn puts forth his theory on scientific knowledge production in his book, “ The Structure of Scientific Revolutions,” and he classifies two ways in which knowledge is produced whether it be during periods of “normal science” or what goes on to be produced in the period of “extraordinary science.”
Kuhn maintains the view that the scientific knowledge produced during these two periods are subjective due to the conflicting paradigms that emerge during these respective periods. Kuhn also argues that observations are theory laden which further bolsters his claim that scientific knowledge is in fact subjective. However, Longino in her article, “Science as Social Knowledge; values and objectivity in scientific inquiry,” doesn’t necessarily endorse Kuhn’s view in regards to the nature of scientific knowledge. Rather, Longino argues that science should rely on observations and it is up to the scientific community when guided by criteria that Longino provides, to produce scientific knowledge, which according to her is essentially social knowledge.
In order to better understand Kuhn’s argument regarding the nature of scientific knowledge production and what he categorized as “normal science” and “extraordinary science” it is imperative to work through Kuhn’s theory regarding paradigms and paradigm shifts. Kuhn explains that science isn’t cumulative and it shouldn’t exist as one theory lending to another rather science is guided by paradigms. A paradigm according to Kuhn doesn’t need to have an answer for every aspect of the theory or issue at hand, rather it guides the theory and is puzzle solving, meaning there a sense of leeway and it can also change over time. The theory becomes to be the paradigm because it offers the best explanation of the phenomenon at hand.
127 our experts are availableright now
The scientific community comes to accept the paradigm and shifts the way they had once thought about the phenomenon, this allows a discipline to emerge and for the theory to be better understood and analyzed. The scientists who cannot come to accept the paradigm, according to Kuhn are no longer considered scientists in that field and either are forgotten or die out, this is what allows the paradigm to emerge as well as be taught to other while continuing to offer the best explanation for the phenomenon.
However, Kuhn doesn’t argue that because that one paradigm emerges science is necessarily objective nor does the paradigm continue to be the only solution to the issue at hand, hence its’ puzzle solving aspect. Kuhn describes the shift from normal science to revolutionary science, he claims that when a paradigm emerges it does not solve all the issues and there are anomalies that arise. However, when the anomalies cannot be reconciled and are too prevalent this leads to the stage of crisis, where the paradigm can no longer offer the best explanation for a theory or a discipline of science.
A new theory emerges which reconciles the anomalies and therefore the crisis, this is what Kuhn deems a paradigm shift, which leads to a revolution or “extraordinary science.” It is when the paradigm shift occurs which disallows science from being objective. When discussing paradigm shift Kuhn mentions the gestalt switch and how two different people looking at the same image see different things, this is where subjectivity come into play. Similarly, people see different things when they are looking at the same concept in science. Under this view different paradigms are merely different ways of seeing things and therefore science becomes subjective based on what we chose to see.
All paradigms and theories are based on subjective ideas and conditioning, as well as what knowledge and tools that are available at the time. Therefore, a cycle emerges between normal science and extraordinary science, and it the revolutionary work done during the time of extraordinary science, which allows science to progress. It is faith and persuasion which allows science to accept a new theory and ultimately progress according to Kuhn, not logic and experimentation. It is important to note that for Kuhn when he thinks of science progressing it is not towards something but rather from something, from normal science, to a crisis and eventually a paradigm shift which allows for a revolution.
Helen Longino in her article, “Science as Social Knowledge; values and objectivity in scientific inquiry, doesn’t agree that the nature of scientific knowledge should be only categorized as “normal science” and “extraordinary science,” nor is science purely subjective. Rather Longino discusses that science and the nature of scientific knowledge progresses in a different way that Kuhn has argued and put forth. Longino argues that scientific knowledge is essentially social knowledge and she basis this by discussing how the scientific community operates. Kuhn and Longino have different ideas of scientific knowledge which stems from their different approaches to theoretical virtues, which are desirable features of a scientific theory. Kuhn believes these values should be broad in scope, fruitful, accurate and simple.
While Longino thinks that theoretical values should be applicable to actual human needs, have empirical accuracy, and are complex. Longino then goes on in her article to provide criterion for community values, which ultimately under her view allow for scientific objectivity. She claims that the community has to include, public venues with a recognized author for criticism, the community uptakes criticism, there has to be an allowance for a community response so that it can be transformative, there are public and shared standards and there is an equality of intellectual authority.
Furthermore, under the lense of peer review it is easier to understand Longino’s argument regarding the objectivity of scientific knowledge. Longino believes that it is peer review in itself that allows for objectivity in science. Peer review is what allows the four criterion that Longino puts forth to exist, it needs a public setting and other community members in order criticise and keep the individual science in check and exposed to a variations in opinions which dilutes the element of subjectivity.
Thus the objectivity of the science due to the community and peer review allows science to progress and get at its’ goal of the truth or rather what the facts “really” are. For Longino peer review and the existence of a scientific community it is essentially what allows science to progress as well as what allows for the production of scientific knowledge. The community is what forces change and progression, open criticism is an essential part of the production of scientific knowledge and allows science to develop over time.
References
- Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy – Thomas Kuhn
- The Structure of Scientific Revolutions and Its Significance: An Appraisal
- Kuhn’s “Normative Naturalism” Challenge to the Philosophy of Mind and Phenomenology – a Defence
- Thomas Kuhn And The Structure Of Scientific Revolutions
- The Scope of Kuhn’s Paradigm Concept
- Epistemology and Methodology Revisited: The Old Testament’s Prophets and Epistemic Modesty in Modern Biblical Scholarship
