Note: See the explanation in the previous post; this was handed to me almost at the same time. This one feels stylistically completely different, and in fact a bit too scattered. It might be better to sketch, a little, the particularly interesting or controversial issues that came up in the actual classroom discussion, especially where the discussion was most concentrated. Although I said that all that was needed was to do a light editing of the lecture notes, they still do need some editing after all; it should nevertheless reflect a bit of the fruits of the classroom discussion. Of course, the speaker may also annotate and supplement it here at any time~
Chapter One Introduction The Role of History
From the traditional perspective, the development of science is regarded as a purely cumulative process: “facts, theories, and methods are in this process, either separately or in combination, added to the continually growing stack of techniques and knowledge that make up science.”【1】
If that is the case, then historians of science need only face two tasks: 1. sorting out the positive information—who discovered what law, or constructed what theory, at what time, and through what experiment? 2. clearing away the negative information—the so-called errors, myths, and superstitions that obstructed the development of science.【3】
In the actual course of research, what problems did historians of science encounter with the above line of thought?
1. Who, and at what time, is very difficult to define.
2. There is no clear boundary between discarded erroneous knowledge and the correct knowledge accepted today.
A change in research method
No longer examining the history of science along a straight line; when they study Galileo and Kepler, they no longer compare Galileo’s and Kepler’s views with modern science. Instead, they study the relationship between them and other schools of the same period, or the relationship between them and their predecessors and successors a little earlier or later.【4】 In this way, “science” is restored to “history.”
Chapter Two The Road to Normal Science
What is called “normal science” refers to research based on one or more past scientific achievements, achievements that for a period of time are unanimously regarded by a scientific community as the basis for further practice.【10】
These achievements can become a foundation by virtue of the following two characteristics: 1. They are sufficiently successful in solving a certain kind of problem that they can attract a large number of adherents and stand out from among multiple competing systems of the same period. 2. They are not complete, leaving endless problems for later generations to solve.
Any scientific achievement possessing these two characteristics may be called a paradigm.【11】
With the help of the concept of paradigm, Kuhn divided scientific research into two parts. One part is tentative research carried out in the absence of a paradigm, or at least in the absence of a clear, binding paradigm. The other part is the increasingly deep inquiry into the problems internal to a paradigm after it has been established. Kuhn believed that only entering the paradigm stage is the sign that a field has matured.
{No paradigm} Random collection of phenomena
{multiple conjectures competing with one another}
{the formation of the first paradigm}
Wave-particle duality of light【13】
Electricity【14、15、17、18、21】
When an individual or group first produces a synthesis that can attract most practitioners of the next generation, the older schools gradually disappear.【19】The situation then becomes one in which many people interested in this field work around a single paradigm. Compared with the period without a paradigm, what new features does paradigm research have?
With a common foundation, one need not start from scratch and can probe directly into the depths.【20】
Specialization, and growing farther and farther away from the public. (Can we perhaps say that before paradigms, there was no scientific community?)【21】
Chapters Three and Four The Nature of Normal Science
Scientific research enters the paradigm stage
If a paradigm represents the final work, then what further problems remain for later generations to solve?
Kuhn emphasizes: a paradigm is not something that is merely repeated over and over; on the contrary, a paradigm is an object that still needs to be further clarified and specified under new or stricter conditions.【23】
The whole career of most scientists is spent on such clarification and specification. The aim of normal science is neither to discover new kinds of phenomena nor to invent new theories—they usually turn a blind eye to new phenomena and are intolerant of new theories.【24】 So, in fact, the scope of normal science is very small. Why does scientific research need to rely on such a limitation of scope?【25】
The three focal points of experiments in normal science. Please give one example of each?
1. Particularly able to reveal the essence of things【26】
2. Although the theory is universal, the facts available for verification are very few【27】
3. Experiments and observation, resolving the residual ambiguity within the paradigm, as well as small problems not yet solved.【28】 Measuring various constants.
The three focal points of theoretical research in normal science. Please give one example of each?
1. Predicting facts with existing theory.【31】
2. Using the predicted results to examine the theory in return.【32】
3. Clarifying the paradigm.【33】 calculus—differentiation—integration
Since the aim of normal science is not to discover unforeseen new things, but merely to expand the range of application and the precision of the paradigm,【35、36】 why, then, can it attract a group of exceptionally brilliant people to devote their lifelong passion and energy to research?【36、37】 puzzle vs. puzzle-solver
What kind of problem can scientists call a “puzzle”?
The most important characteristic of a puzzle: the person studying it is convinced that it has a solution (regardless of whether it actually does), and is capable of finding the solution within the paradigm.【37】
First level
Paradigm —- provides standards for selecting problems —- distinguishes puzzles (scientific community) from other problems valued by society —- concentrates effort —- normal science progresses rapidly.
Second level
In addition to having more than one definite solution, a puzzle must also have some rules that delimit the methods and steps for solving it.
Example (embedding rare metals in a polymer compound, following the method by which earlier scholars embedded carbon nanotubes, tentative操作 vs. pouring the compounds together, affixing a talisman, and waiting for the result) What is the significance of this delimitation, this drawing of a line that excludes “affixing a talisman” from the rules of the game?
Indicates relevance【39】 provides commitments, theorem level【40】 lower, more specific commitments【41】 higher, metaphysical commitments【42】 commitments to the ultimate goal of scientific research【42】
Question one
What, exactly, is it that determines which of the competing new paradigms will prevail?【24】
Question two
Before a paradigm forms: inspiration, intuition, imagination
After a paradigm forms: puzzle solving. Do all scientific problems become logical puzzles? P and NP?
Chapter Five The Priority of Paradigms
The determination of a paradigm is not the determination of a shared set of rules.【44】
One
Because searching for rules is more difficult than searching for a paradigm.
Within a given paradigm, searching for a set of rules sufficient to constitute an established tradition of normal research is a process of repeated frustration.【44】
Wittgenstein
We must grasp a set of properties shared by all games and by this one unique game rule.【45】 But such specific properties do not exist.
Family resemblance–network–open boundaries
Two
Scientists work through models, and often do not need to know explicitly what features give these models their common paradigm status, and therefore do not need to work out the whole set of rules.【46】
Scientists never learn concepts, laws, and theories in the abstract.
These concepts, laws, and theories must appear together with applications, and be displayed through applications.【47】
Three
Normal science can proceed without rules, as long as the relevant scientific community reaches consensus on the solution to a specific problem.【48】 But when scientists disagree over the fundamental issues in a field, the search for rules becomes important.【49】
Four
Science is a rather loose structure, with little coherence among its parts.【50】
So local, small paradigm changes do not affect the scientific rules of other fields.
Chapter Six Anomaly and the Emergence of Scientific Discovery
Research carried out under the guidance of a paradigm ultimately leads to a fundamental transformation of the paradigm. How does all this come about?
New things:
Discovery—the novelty of facts
Invention—the novelty of theories
Awareness of anomaly—-expansive exploration of the anomaly—-adjustment of the paradigm—-adjustment completed: scientists learn to see the world in a new way【54】
X-rays【59】
By analogy with a new element in the periodic table, since X-rays are after all only one member of the electromagnetic waves, their discovery would not cause much shock to the existing human knowledge structure of optics. Why, then, does Kuhn classify them as an “anomaly”?
Paradigm shifts can be large or small. Although the discovery of X-rays did not bring about a major theoretical reform, it revolutionized the research method for “rays” in the laboratory; the reform of an operational paradigm is also a kind of reform.
Anomalies appear only against the background provided by a paradigm. The more precise a paradigm is, and the broader its scope, the more sensitive it is as an indicator of anomaly.【65】
In the normal mode of scientific discovery, the forces that impede change are also very important.
This resistance ensures that paradigms are not easily discarded; only anomalies that can challenge the core of the existing system will cause a true crisis.【65】
Why must there always be anomalies within a paradigm?
Paradigms are created by people, and human limitations determine the limitations of paradigms.
Chapter Seven Crisis and the Emergence of Scientific Theory
Since normal science is not aimed at pursuing new discoveries or new inventions, how can new theories emerge from old paradigms?
When normal science cannot solve the puzzle it was supposed to solve—-a crisis appears
The significance of crisis: it points out that the time has come to change tools.【65】
Chapter Eight Responses to Crisis
First, a refutation of falsificationism
One
It is impossible to compare rules directly with nature.
When scientists reject a previously accepted paradigm, it is always accompanied by the decision to accept another paradigm as well.【77】
Two
In the early stage when counterexamples or anomalies appear, scientists do not reject the paradigm. Tolerating disharmony—-necessary tension【79】
Once there is no paradigm, how can research still be done?
There is no research without counterexamples
Every problem regarded by normal science as a puzzle can, from another perspective, be regarded as a counterexample.
There is no clear boundary between puzzles and counterexamples.
Then the discussion turns to: after scientists realize that anomalies exist, how do they respond?
One
When anomalies do not hit the core issue, scientists usually choose to set them aside.【82】
Two
When anomalies are large enough to trigger a crisis: 1. set them aside for later generations. 2. a candidate for the paradigm appears.【85】
Paradigm shift
Chapter Nine The Nature and Necessity of Scientific Revolution
Since a new theory does not necessarily conflict with an old theory, why must the absorption of these new theories or new phenomena be at the cost of abandoning the old paradigm?【95】
Refutation of the accumulative nature of knowledge
Establishing a mutation-revolution theory
Why say that “although the logical relation of implication between old and new theories is an admissible view, historically speaking, this view is impossible.”【99】
What is meant by “logical,” in other words, is the kind of science presented in textbooks: Einstein can be derived from Maxwell, and Maxwell from Newton. The logical relations among them are harmonious. But in fact, knowledge does not arise in that way. The emergence of a new paradigm automatically dissolves some of the anomalies within the old paradigm, turning them into “tautologies.”【78】
The Einstein revolution【102】
A scientific revolution is a change in the conceptual network through which scientists observe the world.
The new tradition of normal science that emerges in a scientific revolution is not only logically incompatible with the previous scientific tradition, but in practice incommensurable as well.
And incommensurability brings another question: what determines which of multiple competing paradigms will ultimately prevail? (Discussed in the previous class.)
Chapter Ten Revolution Is a Change of Worldview
Chapter Eleven Revolution Is Invisible
Chapter Twelve The Resolution of Revolution
How can one of the substitute paradigms prevail?
PK the old paradigm
PK other new paradigms of the same period
Chapter Thirteen Progress through Revolution
Science vs. non-science
Non-science: multiple schools always compete together, and each school is always questioning the foundations of the others.
Science: during normal periods, only one paradigm can dominate the whole field—advancement.
Because of a shared belief: conflicting rules cannot coexist in scientific research【169】
Scientific revolution vs. revolution
The reason scientific revolution differs from revolution in the general sense is that the right to choose among paradigms belongs to a group of special people—the scientific community【167】
The process of evolution has no goal?
Translated from the Chinese original with AI assistance. The original text is authoritative.
Leave a Reply