Introduction
It was during his regular job as an American historian of science at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology that Thomas Kuhn realized that theories which were ones believed to be true, were actually not really true, since they were at some point replaced by others, which were also believed to be more true than the previous ones(Bertie.ccsu.edu., n.d.) For instance, the common belief that the earth is at the center of the universe was eventually replaced by Galileo Galilei’s discovery that indeed the sun is at the center of the solar system. Galileo Galilei’s discovery was proved true due to the improved and increased knowledge and research that came to humans with time. Humans once believed previous research that Earth was …show more content…
On these two questions, Kuhn was able to develop the concept of paradigm. In the view of Kuhn, a paradigm is basically a model which contains guiding principles of scientific research (Kuhn, 1998; Kuhn, 2012). However, it is not to be confused with a set of rules, regulations or even a formula, but it is simply a clear path aimed at guiding a scientist through his endeavors of solving a particular problem (Dahnke, 2011). Kuhn’s argument is that “science does not build upon itself in a linear progression, but by leaps and bounds; and such progressions are not dictated by empiricism alone, but by a mixture of elements contained within a paradigm” (Dahnke, 2011). Thus, a paradigm is a constituent of principles, assumptions and guidelines that support a particular theory or model so that current and future scientific research builds on those principles and guidelines. Structure of Scientific Theory detailed how a paradigm helps determine the scope of an experiment conducted and important problems to solve during that experiment. A change in the paradigm would modify any original thoughts and concepts within the research and uncover new principles of evidence and techniques; hence the phrase of the old being replaced by the …show more content…
The scientific revolution process allows for the process of group cognitive behavior whereby the public makes its own views for a particular paradigm after the scientists are content about its effectiveness in guiding them towards a direction of their desire (Bertie.ccsu.edu., n.d.). Research has it that core beliefs and values make the foundation of human behavior (Wright, Thase, Wright and Basco, 2005). In Kuhn’s argumentation, when a paradigm is finally deemed worthy of public scrutiny, the values of the people scrutinizing it will have a significant impact on the principles of the social paradigm formed. Thus a paradigm that draws mixed reactions because of a clash of its principles and the public’s values will be more criticized leading to its re-shaping or review so that it finally conforms to the demands of its external environment (Dahnke, 2011). The extent and training of a paradigm’s stakeholder’s training, such as the scientists and critics also go a long way in determining how a social paradigm is formed and where it extends its boundaries. The more trained they are in utilizing a paradigm’s’ principles, the wider its boundaries and the more likely it will be that people affected will exist as a society, since it will consider wider aspects of the society in
It was during his regular job as an American historian of science at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology that Thomas Kuhn realized that theories which were ones believed to be true, were actually not really true, since they were at some point replaced by others, which were also believed to be more true than the previous ones(Bertie.ccsu.edu., n.d.) For instance, the common belief that the earth is at the center of the universe was eventually replaced by Galileo Galilei’s discovery that indeed the sun is at the center of the solar system. Galileo Galilei’s discovery was proved true due to the improved and increased knowledge and research that came to humans with time. Humans once believed previous research that Earth was …show more content…
On these two questions, Kuhn was able to develop the concept of paradigm. In the view of Kuhn, a paradigm is basically a model which contains guiding principles of scientific research (Kuhn, 1998; Kuhn, 2012). However, it is not to be confused with a set of rules, regulations or even a formula, but it is simply a clear path aimed at guiding a scientist through his endeavors of solving a particular problem (Dahnke, 2011). Kuhn’s argument is that “science does not build upon itself in a linear progression, but by leaps and bounds; and such progressions are not dictated by empiricism alone, but by a mixture of elements contained within a paradigm” (Dahnke, 2011). Thus, a paradigm is a constituent of principles, assumptions and guidelines that support a particular theory or model so that current and future scientific research builds on those principles and guidelines. Structure of Scientific Theory detailed how a paradigm helps determine the scope of an experiment conducted and important problems to solve during that experiment. A change in the paradigm would modify any original thoughts and concepts within the research and uncover new principles of evidence and techniques; hence the phrase of the old being replaced by the …show more content…
The scientific revolution process allows for the process of group cognitive behavior whereby the public makes its own views for a particular paradigm after the scientists are content about its effectiveness in guiding them towards a direction of their desire (Bertie.ccsu.edu., n.d.). Research has it that core beliefs and values make the foundation of human behavior (Wright, Thase, Wright and Basco, 2005). In Kuhn’s argumentation, when a paradigm is finally deemed worthy of public scrutiny, the values of the people scrutinizing it will have a significant impact on the principles of the social paradigm formed. Thus a paradigm that draws mixed reactions because of a clash of its principles and the public’s values will be more criticized leading to its re-shaping or review so that it finally conforms to the demands of its external environment (Dahnke, 2011). The extent and training of a paradigm’s stakeholder’s training, such as the scientists and critics also go a long way in determining how a social paradigm is formed and where it extends its boundaries. The more trained they are in utilizing a paradigm’s’ principles, the wider its boundaries and the more likely it will be that people affected will exist as a society, since it will consider wider aspects of the society in