Philosophy of science: epistemology, methodology, and inquiry

Philosophy of Science

Kuhn does not consider himself to be a relativist. Relativism has to do with our beliefs as individuals and the value and importance we place on those beliefs. Kuhn has many different beliefs regarding science. He did not believe that scientist should abandon one method of research for another. Kuhn believed that once a scientific paradigm was established, it should not be challenged or tested. His reply to the charge that he is not a relativist is clearly inadequate. He argues that the truth of a paradigm is impossible to find. He acknowledges that some scientist have been able to improve upon a particular paradigm, but that these improvements do nothing to bring us closer to the truth of the original paradigm. In Kuhn's view, a paradigm is what it is and there should be no changes.

Kuhn felt that paradigms were immeasurable. Once a paradigm is set, he felt it was useless to test one theory against another or to try to prove a paradigm as false. When dealing with relativism, we know that what holds true for one individual may not hold true for the next. Because our world is constantly changing and evolving, to never test a scientific theory (as Kuhn suggests) means that science will remain stagnant and will never evolve. Kuhn states in his response that he is not a relativist that the testing of these paradigms and slight improvements on them take us in circles, but do not actually move us closer to the truth. Given this, we must ask ourselves what exactly is the truth? Are we to base our definition of the truth of these paradigms according to Kuhn's beliefs, or do we have the right to formulate our own truths based on our own knowledge and perceptions?

If we follow Kuhn's view, then there is no relativity because everyone will be on the same page that Kuhn was on. However, in order to constantly evolve scientist must continue to test theories and determine ways to improve upon existing paradigms so that science can keep up with our ever changing environment. Kuhn rejected these ideas based on his belief that it was impossible to find neutral evidence with which to test an existing paradigm because all evidence pertaining to any particular paradigm is derived from that very same paradigm. Therefore, according to him, no evidence could be neutral. Based on this, it is easy to view Kuhn as one who did not think outside the box and did not value change. In his view, paradigms were absolute and were not subject to change and were not to be challenged. This method of thinking is ontological.

Kuhn only wanted to deal with what is and to him that meant whatever a specific paradigm what set as. He felt that once we saw what was set before us scientifically it should not be changed because these paradigms are immeasurable. Kuhn was not a proponent of the scientist as an independent thinker. If a new paradigm was constructed, he did not feel it should be used to build upon and existing one, but that it should completely replace the existing paradigm. As mentioned before, this method of thinking does not allow for evolution or growth. If we are constantly getting rid of one paradigm and replacing it with another, it is as though we are negating the first paradigm. This process does nothing to allow us to see how science has changed, nor does it allow us to measure the past against the present. But, according to Kuhn, paradigms were immeasurable. If this is the case, how do scientists know in which direction to move if they have no idea which direction they came from?

If, as Kuhn states, we only have access to the world through a paradigm, why then can't we build upon or change the paradigm? The readings give examples of changes in paradigms. A good example is the planet Uranus which was first seen as a star, then a comet and today it is seen as a planet. All of this happened because of changes in research and stepping away from an existing paradigm. Kuhn can argue the fact that he is not a relativist, but he was. His belief of science was his truth and of course, there were probably many that followed his beliefs. But, because they were true for him does not mean they stand true for the entire scientific community.

Kuhn seems to reject the notation of thinking outside the box and adapting to different methods of research. If one method is not satisfactory, why not abandon the method for a more useful one? He is a relativist because of the fact that he held steady to his beliefs. He held firm to the belief that scientist should not test a scientific theory on order to prove it true of false since they would need to test the theory against a neutral body of evidence. According to him, that body of evidence comes from the same exact paradigm that the scientist is trying to confirm.