Note: Sample below may appear distorted but all corresponding word document files contain proper formattingExcerpt from essay:
This was based on what little normative science could be carried out through crossing different animals. It was an accepted fact to many in the animal husbandry business. The first creative breakthrough occurred in 1868 when a young Swiss physician, Freiderich Meischer, isolated something that had not been seen before. This creative scientist isolated nucleic acid, a compound found in both DNA and RNA (Fredholm). This discovery sparked a quest to understand more about nucleic acid and its connection to Mendel's pea experiments just two years earlier. Mendel believed that the traits seen in peas were passed on through "packages" that contained the information (Fredholm). These packages later turned out to be DNA.
These discoveries led to the normal science processes and a quest to learn more about DNA and its connections to selective breeding. However, in mainstream practice, many had not heard of DNA yet, it had not reached the household term status that is has today. In practice, farmers and others in the animal husbandry business continued to produce better animals that same way that they had been doing it for thousands of years. The information and discoveries of Mendel and Miescher had not reached the level of common knowledge. It was not until the late 1940s that normal science began to explore DNA and its connection to life in earnest (Fredholm).
When the concept of DNA and its connection to life were first introduced in the late 1940s, many scientists refused to accept it, simply because it seemed too simple to explain the complexities of life on earth (Fredholm). However, this did not discover creative scientists such as Watson and Crick, who set out to solve the problem of the structure of DNA (Fredholm). They used stick and ball models to explore the double helix structure that is now so common that everyone immediately recognizes it. The normal science process continued with experiments that attempted to use X-rays to see through DNA (Fredholm).
In 1954, Pauling won a Nobel Prize for his work with chemical bonds and the structure of molecules and crystals (Fredholm). This work complimented the work done by Watson and Crick, providing another piece to the puzzle. The normative science portion of the paradigm shift then reached a frenzy, with work going on everywhere to try to understand the processes that were behind the secrets of life itself. However, these concepts, still were not household words.
Knowledge continued to build in regards to our understanding of how chemical bonds formed and combined in DNA to create life. In 1973, Herbert Boyer and Stanley Cohen used enzymes to cut bacteria and insert a strand of DNA in the gap (Fredholm). This was the first attempt at gene splicing. By this time, the concept of DNA was accepted as the new paradigm in bioengineering. The doubters of the late 1940s were gone and had been completely replaced by the acceptance of DNA as the basis for life. However, it turned out that it is not as "simple" as early critics of the new paradigm claimed.
By the early 1970s, anyone who openly doubted that DNA was the substance of life would be ridiculed and dismissed as a fool. The new paradigm had completely replaced the old one. This supports Kuhn's concept of incommensurability of the old and new paradigm. The old idea that DNA was not the source of life and the concept that DNA was the source of life could not exist at the same time. Since that time, normal science continues to unlock the genetic code. We now understand how specific DNA chains contribute to disease and the body's natural ability to heal.
Through an examination of the progression of thought about DNA and its connection to life, one can seen that Kuhn's concepts about scientific revolution apply. The field of bioengineering is a prime example of Kuhn's concepts in action. One can pinpoint the key paradigm shift regarding DNA to sometime between the late 1940s and the early 1970s. Considering that the concept of selective breeding has been around for thousands of years, this is relatively short time span for a complete reversal of old ideas. By the late 1990s, these concepts had become imbedded in the average American household and the public school system for mass dissemination.
One of the key cautions that must be mentioned regarding Kuhn's concepts is that it is retrospective and is not predictive. No one can predict in advance, where paths in the field of science may lead. However, Kuhn's theories can provide clues as to where we are in the process. We can describe the current state of a new field as being in its early normal science stage, or mature. As a new branch of science matures, it can be observed that the information moves from general to specific. This was seen in our example of bioengineering. During the late 1940s, the concepts being presented were general in nature. Now, the information available is highly specialized. Specialization is a function of the processes described by Kuhn. As a new field matures through normal science, it begins to split into specialties. This concept was not discussed by Kuhn, but it is the next logical step in the argument.
Perhaps eventually, the paradigms that we now have about DNA will be replaced by new paradigms. An examination of the history of thought in genetics and bioengineering support Kuhn's ideas about DNA and life on earth. Despite the critics of his theory, it is easy to see that the basic concepts of his theories can be supported by an examination of many field of science. Science is an ever-changing area where old ideas are continually being replaced by new ones. Kuhn's theory provides a map that can be used to follow these changes. This map can serve as a guide in many branches of the sciences.
Fredholm, L. The Discovery of the Molecular Structure of DNA - The Double Helix. 2003.
Accessed July 3, 2009.
Horgan, J. "Profile: Reluctant Revolutionary: Thomas S. Kuhn Unleashed 'Paradigm' on the World," Scientific American, May 1991 pp. 40-49.
Kuhn. T. Black-Body Theory and the Quantum Discontinuity 1894- 1912 (Oxford University
Kuhn, T. The structure of scientific revolutions. (Chicago: The University of Chicago Press,
Mitra, A. "Thomas Kuhn's Structure of Scientific Revolutions: A Critique." 1994, Reformatted
June 2003. < http://horizons-
2000.org/2.%20Ideas%20and%20Meaning/Topics/critique%20of%20Kuhn%27s%20arg ument.html >.
Weinberg, S. "The Revolution that Did Not Happen." < http://www.astro.uni-
bonn.de/~willerd/weinberg.html> Accessed July 3, 2009.[continue]
"Thomas Kuhn's Theory Of Scientific" (2009, July 06) Retrieved December 8, 2016, from http://www.paperdue.com/essay/thomas-kuhn-theory-of-scientific-20772
"Thomas Kuhn's Theory Of Scientific" 06 July 2009. Web.8 December. 2016. <http://www.paperdue.com/essay/thomas-kuhn-theory-of-scientific-20772>
"Thomas Kuhn's Theory Of Scientific", 06 July 2009, Accessed.8 December. 2016, http://www.paperdue.com/essay/thomas-kuhn-theory-of-scientific-20772
The concept of the paradigm shift, however, negates the very idea that truth could ever actually be reached. Each paradigm -- which only gives way to another paradigm, leaving all knowledge and understanding ultimately tied to some semblance of foundational assumptions. There is no getting beyond the assumptions, as they are a necessary component (in Kuhn's view) of establishing any sort of causal understanding at all. Science is then, taking
Thomas Kuhn (1922-1996) was an American scientist, historian and philosopher who wrote a controversial book in 1962 called The Structure of Scientific Revolutions. Kuhn was born in Cincinnati, Ohio and from an early age expressed interest in science, particularly physics; obtaining his BS degree in physics from Harvard in 1943. He stayed at Harvard for his MS and PhD, and credits the period of the late 1940s in helping him
Research can be added to the paradigms through discovery, without an actual paradigm shift, or the paradigm can be completely replaced through crisis. Scientific revolutions are sometimes so great that it can be said that with the advent of a paradigm shift, the world itself changes. However, as Kuhn (1996) sustains, the world does not actually change every time a paradigm shift occurs, although it can be said that the
If the anomaly resists explanation within the paradigm, the paradigm is altered to include the anomaly. Therefore, to lead to a true crisis and to form the foundation of a scientific revolution, an anomaly must conflict with the basic tenets of the paradigm. In addition, the anomaly cannot be answered by normal research and problem-solving skills within the paradigm, regardless of the modifications. Therefore, it can be said that crises
What they had regarded as the most certain of all theories turned out to be in need of serious revision. In reaction, they resolved never again to bestow their faith in scientific truth unconditionally. Skepticism, not certainty, became their watchword. (ibid) The implication of Kuhn's work was that science was seen to be dependent on history. It was no longer superior to historical analysis but could only be understood within the
This means that the older paradigm is replaced by the new and the new concepts and views and the new are not compatible with the old. "...the new paradigm cannot build on the preceding one. Rather, it can only supplant it..." (Thomas Kuhn). Kuhn's theory was in effect challenging a view of scientific progress that had begun with Comte and the Enlightenment. This refers to the original view and belief
An article of the Physics Department at the Weber State University argues that Kuhn's complicated view is due to the essential nebulous character of the paradigm itself. Given this situation then, the authors at the Weber University argue that Kuhn's model is not entirely applicable as one cannot entirely know the features and characteristics of a paradigm, such as its components or its evolution. They go on by offering the