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
Thus, we can conclude by looking at examples from the past that there are no rational grounds on which paradigms can be compared. Drawing on that, we can also conclude that since they cannot be compared, you cannot move elements between the two. Therefore, if the elements are not movable, there is no way that the knowledge can accumulate and science is deemed non-cumulative. e that used the idea that light was transverse waves. In this example there was no accumulation; instead, a total change from one idea to the other occurred (class notes). was more complicated, the Ptolemaic theories provided more confirmable predictions than the Copernican theories. 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. In the other conflict, Carnap believes that understanding is a cumulative process where what you know is changed and new elements are added when they become highly confirmed while Kuhn believes that since the paradigm is changing, you cannot compare the two on the same level, and it is therefore 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. 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. During that shift, all the ideas of light being composed of particles were dropped for thos! egree of confirmation to accept a complex theory or not just as you would a simple theory (Carnap, 146-147 of Zucker). In contrast, it can be derived from Kuhn's argument that since the two paradigms are incommensurable, you cannot take parts of one and add them to the other; thus, Kuhn views science, in the larger scope of history, as non-cumulative. The conflict between Carnap and Kuh
Some common words found in the essay are:
, Kuhn Carnap, Zucker Secondly, According Carnap, Kuhn Carnap's, 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,
Approximate Word count = 1293
Approximate Pages = 5 (250 words per page double spaced)
|
