Logic of Discovery or Psychology of Research? PRESENTATION BY LEIF CHRISTIANSEN

Brief Intro to Kuhn  “Paradigm”  “Normal Science”  “Puzzle Solving”  “Extraordinary Science”

Science according to Kuhn

Kuhn’s Objective Clarify the differences, not disagreements, between Kuhn’s and Popper’s theories on the philosophy of science Examination of “inappropriate” metaphors that “may … be symptomatic of contextual differences that a careful literal expression hides.” (3)

The Similarities  Science as dynamic knowledge acquisition  Historiographical argument  Scientific progress through revolution, not accretion  Entanglement of theory and observation  Skepticism towards a neutral observation language  Science’s ability to explain observable phenomena in terms of real objects.

The Four Locutions Testing Learning from Mistakes Falsification Psychology of Science

Fundamental Disagreement KUHN “Normal science” is most characteristic and informative of scientific endeavor. Theories are not tested, the “puzzle solving” ability of scientists is tested. Theory rejection and scientific revolution are political processes catalyzed by periods of crisis. POPPER “Extraordinary science” is most characteristic and informative of scientific endeavor. Science may perform “tests” with enough objectivity to “falsify” theories. A theory is rejected when sufficiently falsified.

Cybernetics

Discussion Did Kuhn fairly characterize the views of Popper? Between Popper and Kuhn, who did you find most convincing? Whose theories better describe your own experience with science? Does science progress? Has your answer to this question changed since reading the Popper and Kuhn articles?