Nature and Necessity of Scientific Revolutions Preview

Scientific Revolutions Preview

The author uses successive paradigms to bring out the nature of the universe. The point is that there are various (and diverse) aspects of the universe and the behavior of its population. Specifically, Thomas points out that "they differ, that is, about such questions as the existence of subatomic particles, the materiality of light, and the conservation of heat or of energy." (9) The author states that these differences do not require further explanation as they arise in successive paradigms. The paradigms are important since they provide basis for solutions, problem fields and various methods in the universe.

The author points out that the nature of the universe is too complex with great variations and thus, random exploration is not justified. Therefore, there is a need for a map that provides important information to be used in relevant scientific research that explores the complex nature. The importance on the function of normative paradigms is that, "by shifting emphasis from the cognitive to the normative functions of paradigms, the preceding examples enlarge our understanding of the ways in which paradigms give form to the scientific life." (15) Previous examinations show that paradigms play an important role in scientific theory. The role mainly informs the researcher or the scientist on the aspects that can and cannot describe the nature and their behaviors as well. "That information provides a map whose details are elucidated by mature scientific research." (15) The map creates a platform for continual scientific study of the universe and its nature into the future. The theories that are involved in paradigms are important for research. Apart from creating the map, the paradigms provide theories, standards and methods, all together to research scientists. Thus, a change in paradigms goes a long way to affect research in that, "there are usually significant shifts in the criteria determining the legitimacy both of problems and of proposed solutions." (15)

The author points out the nature of man as one that engages in political revolutions. He brings this out when he compares the nature of paradigms to that of political revolutions. What causes the revolution is the feeling among man that the institutions inadequately meet their needs and the issues brought up by nature. For man to engage in the political revolutions, their main aim is to change the existing political establishments in terms that are prohibited by the political establishments themselves. Therefore, for man to succeed in these revolutions, they must seek a partial replacement of one set of establishments with another. As the author writes, "Their success therefore necessitates the partial relinquishment of one set of institutions in favor of another, and in the interim, society is not fully governed by institutions at all." (3)

Just as in paradigms, the reduced effectiveness of a political establishment is due to a crisis, thus, moving people to engage in political revolutions. With time, more and more people become increasingly alienated from the political establishments and they begin to act oddly against them. Consequently, the crisis becomes deeper and several men give themselves to a process of coming up with a proposal that reconstructs the society and culminates in a new political institution. It is important to note that the nature of man often divides the society at such times into different factions that compete against each other: those that stand for the old institutions and the others want an altogether new institution. Unfortunately, once there is such polarization the author holds that, "political recourse fails." (3) The difference is in the matrix that will facilitate the political change, thus "the parties to a revolutionary conflict must finally resort to the techniques of mass persuasion, often including force." (3)

The author points out that in order for man to be happy they ought to pick on problems whose solutions can be found through existing techniques. This is applicable in normal research that is cumulative in nature, "owes its success to the ability of scientists regularly to select problems that can be solved with conceptual and instrumental techniques close to those already in existence." (5) This is important as one focuses on problems that cannot be related to an existing technique and body of knowledge prevents meaningful scientific development. For someone who is determined to get a solution to a problem that can be explained by an existing technique and body of knowledge makes a point to look beyond, the advantage is that the person has a drive to achieve what he wants, goes forth to design the necessary instruments and disciplines his thoughts in the right direction. Indicating its effectiveness, "Unanticipated novelty, the new discovery, can emerge only to the extent that his anticipations about nature and his instruments prove wrong." (5)

Most times, the necessity of the new discovery relates directly to the level and inflexibility of the irregularity that prefigured it. In regard to this, the author argues that there has to be a struggle that exists between the model that discloses the irregularity and the other that later indicates it as law-like. Moreover, when one uses new theories to settle irregularities to current theories, the new theory that emerges successful should allow predictions that vary from those of its predecessor. Notably, there could be no difference if the theories were logically well-matched. When one is assimilating the new one, the first ought to be displaced by the second. In support of this the author holds that, "Even a theory like energy conservation, which today seems a logical superstructure that relates to nature only through independently established theories, did not develop historically without paradigm destruction." (6)