E1CHSampleQuiz#1AnswersforJan13
One of the most notable characteristics
of the times we live in is the degree of innovation and creativity
that has risen, leading to unprecedented levels of successful new
ideas and inventions. In the 21st century, social darwinism has
become more and more volatile as adaptation is necessary to
live in our ever-changing world. Paradigm shifts are now viewed
as an essential part of a growing and thriving society, which is why
I think that Kuhn’s analysis of “normal science”, and the way it
inherently categorizes scientific research as either “significant”
or “insignificant” based on rather incomplete answers is very
relevant to all elements of contemporary society. In order to avoid
disregarding ideas and observations that may very well be
revolutionary and expand our worldview, 21st Century college-level
science education should place an increasing amount of focus on
“extraordinary science” (the kind that expands beyond parameters
that can often be suffocating instead of guiding), while maintaining
a general understanding of how normal science has placed us
at a certain point in the grand scheme of scientific discovery.
In order to understand precisely why
extraordinary science should be brought to the forefront of
scientific thought, one must understand the faults that come with
practicing normal science. A huge underlying problem with normal
science is the way that it engages in “development-byaccumulation”,
in which it follows a linear path of scientific discovery where
previous schools of thought are discarded (the degree to which
they are forgotten and ignored is a topic of much debate), and
newer ones are seen as the new scientific norm. The issue with
this
mindset is that previous scientific discoveries that have been
disproved are not necessarily any less scientific than the theories
and paradigms modern society currently believes in. Kuhn explains
this misguided logic as, “if these out-of-date beliefs are
to be called myths, then myths can be produced by the same sorts
of methods and held for the same sorts of reasons that now lead to
scientific knowledge. If, on the other hand, they are to be called
science, then science has included bodies of belief quite
incompatible with the ones we hold today.” In other words, in order
to maintain legitimacy, normal science and its followers are forced
to accept and perpetuate relatively incomplete ideas about how
science has continued to evolve. Another huge fault of normal
science is that amount of restriction it invokes when practicing
it. Normal science is not a search for new ideas, but is often simply
the refinement and cleaning up of already tested and researched
theories, which Kuhn describes as, “an attempt to force
nature into the preformed and relatively inflexible box that the
paradigm supplies. No part of the aim of normal science is to call
forth new sorts of phenomena; indeed those that will not fit the box
are often not seen at at all.” This idea that new findings
are ignored as irrelevant or “wrong” seems far more out of place to
me than the idea that these ideas should be welcomed and delved
into as possible solutions to many questions; science is a field of
explorations, and to place the possibilities into a small
box seems incompatible with the field itself. That being said,
paradigms are a necessary evil in that they provide a guideline for
researchers to follow in order to avoid being overwhelmed or to
stray on the “wrong” path. An example of where the usefulness
of normal science and paradigms can be seen is the Franklinian
paradigm, which provided researches of electricity, “the confidence
that they were on the right track encouraged scientists to
undertake more precise, esoteric, and consuming sorts of
work.” While
it is important to keep in mind the guiding properties of paradigms
and normal science, it is far more valuable to the overall pursuit of
truth in science (and all forms of education) to recall that branching
away from the status quo is what has continually
led world society to become better and more evolved.
If normal science is the status quo,
than “extraordinary science” is the revolutionary; the new
unknown, unexplored, and possibly much more complete answer
to the questions of life. There is a certain freedom afforded by the
lack of boxes and structures in research, and although it can seem
quite overwhelming, I believe that this is the space where true
revolutionary thinking happens. As Kuhn states, “in the absence of
a paradigm or some candidate for paradigm, all of the facts that
could possibly pertain to the development of a given science
are likely to seem equally relevant.” In a restrictive society, this
statement may seem more comforting than the alternative of
having complete freedom to explore the unknown; I see this as a
defining aspect of the study of science. The ability to see the
unexplored as a learning opportunity instead of a hassle is
something that should be emphasized in our 21st century
institutions of higher learning, in order to continue the patterns of
creativity and innovation we see today.
Extraordinary science should be placed at the forefront of scientific
research and education in contemporary
society because deviation from the status quo and change should
be viewed in a positive light as a way to encourage evolution as a
whole. Kuhn mentions that scientists who attempt to research and
publish said research that deviates from the paradigm of the
time are often ignored, and their careers often obliterated. This
should not be encouraged, especially in a field where new
discovery is vital to its survival.
Is the mindset in which we are taught to learn science inadvertently
hindering us? This is the argument author Thomas S. Kuhn
presents in his highly controversial book The Structure of Scientific
Revolutions. As a 21st Century college student majoring in a
scientific discipline, I must partially agree with Kuhn that
emphasizing “normal” science has its flaws, but also argue that
solely focusing on “extraordinary science” has its drawbacks too.
Essentially, I believe a college-level education incorporating both
“normal” and “extraordinary” scientific practices will be the most
effective.
In Chapter 2, Kuhn defines normal science as “research
firmly based upon one or more past scientific achievements,
achievements that some particular community acknowledges for a
time as supplying the foundation for its further practice.” Kuhn
later elaborates upon this concept by coining a closely related
word, “paradigm,” as a means to describe the “accepted examples
of actual scientific practice” that “provide models from which
spring particular coherent traditions of scientific research.”
Ultimately, with these terms, Kuhn is highlighting how modern
science is taught and researched currently. In this sense, the
science education I receive at Foothill is heavily reliant on
“normal” science. What we learn is based on the achievements of
past scientists and our labs consist of producing data to support
these views. With this mentality, most students, like myself,
interpret what we learn from our professors and textbooks as
immutable fact. However, such a view can also be limiting and
preventive of discovery.
Kuhn stresses this flaw of “normal” science, making it clear
he believes it stunts scientific growth. In Chapter 1, Kuhn states
that “normal” science “is predicates on the assumption that the
scientific community knows what the world is like. Much of the
success of the enterprise derives from the community’s willingness
to defend that assumption, if necessary at considerable cost.” In
this sense, Kuhn is stating that by taking the established views of
science as fact, we limit ourselves to understanding new things.
For example, if we encounter a result that does not agree with the
pre-established model, then we automatically assume it is an error.
In Chapter 2, Kuhn also makes it clear that scientists who do not
follow paradigms find themselves “simply read out of the
profession, which thereafter ignores their work.” For these reasons,
I do find myself agreeing with Kuhn. “Normal” science does have
its flaws and is teaching students to develop into scientists who
merely confirm, never discover. If a college-level science
education also emphasized principles of “extraordinary” science
and pushed students to ask questions, then perhaps there would be
more scientists willing to investigate the inexplicable. This, in turn,
could lead to more scientific achievement.
Some of the flaws of “normal” science that Kuhn describes
are not as severe as he believes in my opinion. I believe that
“normal” science does have its place in a college education. In
Chapter 3, Kuhn describes the three main problems of
“determination of significant fact, matching of facts with theory,
and articulation of theory” as exhausting “literature of normal
science.” However, I must disagree with Kuhn in that these
problems make “normal” science completely unviable. For
example, in Chapter 2, Kuhn describes how new paradigms arise.
If “normal” science was completely hindering, no new paradigms
would arise. For example, we would all still believe in old views
and there would be now paradigm shifts. Therefore, I think that
“normal” science still has its place in a college education.
The main reason I believe that “normal” science should still
be taught in conjunction with “extraordinary” science is that it
furthers our knowledge in unexpected ways. By having a preestablished belief, we can investigate that belief further and
discover new details. For example, once we know why liquids boil,
we can investigate their boiling points. Kuhn alludes to this in
Chapter 3 with the statement, “But those restrictions, born in
confidence of a paradigm, turn out to be essential to the
development of science. By focusing attention upon a small range
of relatively esoteric problems, the paradigm forces scientists to
investigate some part of nature in a detail and depth that would
otherwise be unimaginable.” Thus, “normal” science does earn its
place in a college education by providing students with a path to
research. The details of a specific field can never be discovered if
we simply have not basis on what is true or not. So ignoring
“normal” science completely is not the answer.
Kuhn is justified in his Chapter 1 claim that “normal” science
“often suppresses fundamental novelties because they are
necessarily subversive of tis basic commitments.” Many times,
errors or accidents are taken as that. An “unexpected discovery is
not simply factual” because scientists are taught to box themselves
in certain paradigms. Thus, by teaching students solely “normal”
science, you are teaching them to be less creative and inventive.
This will undoubtedly hinder their potential as future scientists.
However, “normal” science also has its benefits in that it allows us
to make discoveries on the basis of paradigms. We learn so much
about a particular field only because “normal” science lays the
“foundation for its further practice.” In this sense, “normal”
science is both good and bad. Only if also taught “extraordinary”
scientific principles, students will become more well-rounded and
creative scientists. Thus, a college education should emphasize
both “normal” and “extraordinary” science.
In my opinion, normal science should be emphasized in a 21st
century college-level science education. It is necessary to hold an
understanding of "normal" science before "extraordinary" science
is pursued; even a bridge with the most complex of design will
collapse without a sound substructure to support it. Normal science
must serve as a foundation for scientific inquiry and pursuit of
knowledge, but it cannot be what defines it. Kuhn writes,
"Observation and experience can and must drastically restrict the
range of admissible scientific belief, else there would be no
science. But they can not alone determine a particular body of such
belief." Upon examination of this quote, I derive that normal
science and traditional scientific method are compulsory building
blocks towards exploring ideas and notions that reside outside the
realm of normality, yet they must not be what delineates it. Science
in itself must be composed of some sort of underlying framework;
the very definition of the term "science" states that it is "the
intellectual and practical activity encompassing the
systematic study of the structure and behavior of the
physical and natural world through observation and
experiment." Notice key words such as "systematic",
"structure", "observation", and "experiment" -- these are all
crucial aspects of the practice of science itself. Nonetheless,
I feel obligated to state that the dictionary definition of
science is, in itself, "normal science"; what is widely
accepted throughout the community and, as Kuhn writes,
"[is] supplying the foundation for its further practice".
Just as each region of a city, state, or country has its indigenous
style of dialect and accompanying societal norms, normal science
serves as the vernacular of the scientific community. This becomes
the basis for intercommunication throughout scientific
society. Kuhn also details that a scientific group "[cannot]
practice its trade without some set of received beliefs". This
essentially summarizes what I have been discussing up to
this point; there must be a foundation to build research upon
in order for it to be sound and accurate. Yet, he criticizes
how adamant and uncompromising these sets of beliefs are
presented to budding scientists. Kuhn chastises the
reception of normal science in traditional teaching, stating,
"normal science often suppresses fundamental novelties
because they are necessarily subversive of its basic
commitments." Research becomes so rigid and repressive to
uphold current definitions of "normal" science that often
when anomalies that could lead to extraordinary science are
quelled before they can be fully explored in-depth.
However, the very nature of normal science as Kuhn
describes it often undoes itself; such rigidity often spurs and
forces scientists to think out of the paradigm's realm. Kuhn
states, "but those restrictions, born from confidence in a
paradigm, turn out to be essential to the development of
science. By focusing attention on a small range of relatively
esoteric problems, the paradigm forces scientists to
investigate some part of nature in a detail and depth that
would otherwise be unimaginable." This stimulation to
investigate is what leads to extraordinary science. When an
anomaly is found that simply cannot be ignored, its pursuit
can eventually lead to a scientific revolution, often heavily
altering or even erasing the previous paradigm in its entirety.
Thereby, can normal science even truly be considered
repressing, or does its inherent structure that is built to
collapse in on itself actually encourage extraordinary
thought?
This is why I believe normal science must be taught and
emphasized in 21st century schools. The very nature of
normal science spurs young scientists to begin processes
that will eventually lead to revolution, as it always has.
Consider this: in the earlier eras of Hellenistic Egypt and
Greco-Roman times, alchemy was considered the most
prevalent and accurate form of scientific thought. Those
scientists who dared go against it were ridiculed in their time,
their writings were burned, and yet, a paradigm shift still
occurred where its teachings were found invalid and thus
overturned. As scientific thought progressed further
throughout time, the most intelligent and respected minds
believed that Earth resided at the center of the universe, and
to claim it not so was heresy. Yet, Nicolaus Copernicus still
published his contrary findings in 1543 with On the
Revolutions of Heavenly Bodies, and while he was heavily
fought at first, yet another paradigm shift followed as his
methodologies were proven correct. Normal science, though
rigid in nature, has not suppressed paradigm shifts in the
past, and will not suppress these scientific revolutions in the
future. Normal science provides a young scientist with the
necessary composure for exploration in science the same
way a language prepares a traveler for exploration in a
foreign country; one is given a means to communicate,
learn, and grow, yet what one does with this knowledge,
these foundations, is entirely their own.
Frommypersonalobservations,Ibelieveourcurrenteducationputsan
imbalancedemphasisonextraordinarysciencetriggeredbyrevolutionaryscientists
suchasNewtonorDarwin,overperiodsofnormalscience.IagreewithKuhn
howeverontheimportanceofemphasizingthe“fact-collecting”or“puzzle-solving”
ofnormalscience,asmostofscientificdevelopmentremainsinthatformrather
thaninstatesofcrisiswhereinparadigmsareoverthrown.Thus,Ithinkweshould
emphasizebothproportionatelyinstressingnormaloverextraordinaryscience,as
focusingonthelatterprovidesthemisleadingnotionthatthegeneralorcommon
natureofscienceisrevolutionaryandfree.BeforereadingKuhn,Ihadthe
impressionthatscientificdevelopmenttrulyoccursduringperiodsofextraordinary
science,sincethebulkofwhatwelearnandcelebratearetheideasofrevolutionary
thinkers,whiletheirsubsequentpuzzle-solverswhofurthercontributewithinthe
paradigmaremostlyeitherignoredorsecondary.Eveninphilosophyclasseswhere
wemightstudyAristotleorKant,itseemstomethatwefocussolelyontheideas
aroundwhichtheparadigmemerged.Thesetofquestionsgivenprioritybythe
paradigmmusthavebeenpursuedbyless-knownpuzzle-solverswhoremain
unknown.
Ontheotherhand,weshouldcontinuetoemphasizeextraordinaryscienceaswell.
Kuhnstatesoneoftheirfunctionsasenablingsubsequentresearchtofocusona
clearsetofproblemsandfactswhilerejectingtherest.SpecificallyinChapterIII,he
mentionsthree“normalfoci”aroundwhichscientificinvestigationoccurs.First,
scientistsaremadetocontinuouslyworktowardshigher,morepreciselevelsof
measurementintheirdatawithintheirfield.Ashestates,“Attemptstoincreasethe
accuracyandscopewithwhichfactsliketheseareknownoccupyasignificant
fractionoftheliteratureofexperimentalandobservationalscience.”Thesecondis
“evenmoreobviouslydependentthanthefirstuponaparadigm,”inattemptingto
aligndataandtheorythroughrepeatedexperiments,whichalsodefinesthe
problemsettoaddresstobeginwith.Finally,researchersareabletomakeprogress
inundertakingfurtherempiricalworkineffortstoarticulateorconfirmthetheory,
clarifyremaininganomalies,andsolveproblemsgivenclaritywithintheparadigm.
Itisimportanttorealizehoweverthatthesecontributionsoccurduringperiodsof
normalratherthanextraordinaryscience.
Theeffectsofextraordinaryscienceonfixingerasofnormalsciencefurther
underlinetheneedtoemphasizenormalscienceaswell.IthinkKuhnmaybe
arguingthattheimportanceofrevolutionsisinenablingtheonsetofstagesof
normalscience,whichinturndrivescientificdevelopment.AshestatesinChapter
III,“fewoftheseelaborateeffortswouldhavebeenconceivedandnonewouldhave
beencarriedoutwithoutaparadigmtheorytodefinetheproblemandtoguarantee
theexistenceofastablesolution.”Itisalsoimportanttostudyextraordinaryscience
tobeawarethattheybringaboutchangeinthestandardswhichdefinetheesoteric
scientificworldwithinwhichworkiscarriedout.AsKuhnstatesinChapterI,the
paradigmprovidesapointofcommitmentorconsensuswhereuponthescientific
community“wouldpracticeitstrade[upon]asetofreceivedbeliefs”todetermine
whatconstitutesnormalscience.
I assert that both extraordinary and normal science fundamentals
should be emphasized in a college education. I attest to this
because the evidence I have received in the first three chapters
leads to the conclusion that extraordinary “revolutions” sprout
from the not so extraordinary pieces of knowledge gained through
normal science practices, and that the two types cannot exist
without one another. Kuhn asserts that normal science is
“…research firmly based upon one or more past scientific
achievements, achievements that some particular scientific
community acknowledges for a time as supplying the foundation
for its further practice.” Normal science is the basis for all
discoveries and the hallmark for scientific practice within all fields.
However, normal science does not come without the potential for
profound limitation that is also the foundation of revolutions.
Once any facet of normal science is considered the norm,
most or all scientists in that field begin operating through the set of
rules that applies to what normal science has discovered, regardless
of potential flaws within the set of rules. The so called flaws within
the set of rules are the birthplace of extraordinary science. Kuhn,
referring to the established set of rules in a scientific field as a
paradigm, articulates it this way: “The success of the paradigm…
is at the start largely a promise of success… normal science
consists in the actualization of that promise… mopping up
operations are what engage most scientists throughout their
careers. That enterprise seems an attempt to force nature into the
preformed and relatively inflexible box that the paradigm supplies.
No part of the aim of normal science is to call forth new sorts of
phenomena… Nor do scientists normally aim to invent new
theories…” Kuhn asserts that normal science limits scientists to a
flawed rulebook and innovation is inhibited to a degree; I see it as
the opposite. Innovation is brought to life when scientists make
discoveries while “mopping up operations” within an established
field. When scientists believe a paradigm is fact, they begin
working as though that is the case. In doing so, they often
encounter many an error along the way. Kuhn says, “Normal
science repeatedly goes astray. And when it does--when, that is,
the profession can no longer evade anomalies that subvert the
existing tradition of scientific practice – then begin the
extraordinary investigations that lead the profession at last to a new
set of commitments, a new basis for the practice of science.”
Essentially, scientific revolutions primarily arise from the
frustration and confusion of a scientist after the establishment of
what was considered to be factual.
Upon abolishment of normal science in schools, teachings
would have no foundation from where the revolutions and
extraordinary science would come. It is more than hopeful to
assume that extraordinary science can rise esoterically and
independently; there has to be something with which the scientist
contests before a process of reform can begin. Perhaps the most
relevant quote is this: “Truth arises more readily from error than
confusion…scientific revolutions are inaugurated by a growing
sense that an existing paradigm has ceased to function adequately
in the exploration of an aspect of nature.” That is, if a scientist
worked lacking a base, he or she would be confused. If a scientist
uses a flawed base, he or she would make errors. The errors would
lead to directly qualitative results and a process of experiments
could occur to reform the system, thereby unleashing a new form
of extraordinary science.
Of course scientific revolutions are to be supremely valued,
but they cannot ( or rarely can) exist without normal science. I
believe normal science to be the process by which extraordinary
science is achieved, and therefore should be taught intertwined in a
college education as though they are co-dependent. Though normal
science can be independent of extraordinary science, its emphasis
alone in a classroom would pose a major impediment to progress
in a field, as any potentially flawed paradigm could keep its grasp
on the population. On the other hand extraordinary science
emphasized independently in a classroom would lead to the same
effect through different means; various scientists with big dreams
of a revolution but without the identifiable materials and basis for
such things. Both normal and extraordinary science should be
taught as a unified concept.
Althoughtherearemultiplethemesandsymbolsinchapters1-10,themost
prevalentthemeistherelationshipbetweenreligionandscience.Therefore,the
mostimportantsentenceforthatthemeissaidbyJamie,"Thiswasneverabout
believing...Thiswasaboutlookingandseeing.Puredata.Youdon'tbelievedata--you
testdata."Theideaofreligion/faithandsciencemakesmultipleappearances
throughoutthechaptersthatcaughtmyattentionmoresothanotherthemesor
symbols.Thisisbecausefromthatidea,whatwethinkweknowandwhatitactually
isgetsputintoquestion.Notonlythatbutdependingifacharacterbelievesin
faithorscience--itrevealsmoreaboutthecharacter.Lastly,thosethatbelievein
faithratherthansciencearetheoneswhodonothaveasolutiontotheirproblems
whereassciencecangiveasolution.Withallofthesereasons,thethemeabout
religionandsciencethatisbestsaidbyJamieisthemostimportant.
Inchaptertwo,JamierantstoLucyaboutthetopicoffaithanddata.Shortlyafter
Jamiesaid,"Thiswasneveraboutbelieving...,"hecontinuesbysaying,"Thisshould
havebeenabouttestingandconfirmation,andweturneditintoaquestionoffaith.
FuckingMerryPerrysprayingforrain...NowondertheChinesearekickingourass."
HereJamierealizesthatbecausetheMerryPerryshavefaithratherthantaking
actionthroughscience,theMerryPerrys(andanyonewhohavefaithoverscience)
arenotmakingtheirlivesanybetter.Jamiebelievesthatscienceisthesolutionto
theirproblems.Incontrast,theMerryPerrysbelievethatfaithwillbetheirsolution,
asshownonpage33,"[Lucy]asked[theMerryPerrys]whytheythoughtGodwould
givethemtheirrainwhenalltheclimatologistswerepredictingless[rain],not
more.Rainiscoming,they'dsayknowingly.Rainiscoming.Theyknewhowthe
universeworked.They'dunlockedallGod'ssecrets.AndnowJamielookedthesame
way."Giventhis,accordingtoLucy,bothJamieandtheMeryPerrys--although
believeindifferentthings--areconvincedthatthatbeliefwillbetheirsolution.
Inchapterthree,therearecertainpointsaboutwhatMariathoughtaboutGodand
miracles."[Maria'sfather]couldcutthroughanything--fencesandCalifornia
guardiesandallthestupidstateborder-controllawsthatsaidyouhadtostayina
reliefzoneandstarveinsteadofgoingwhereGodstillpouredwaterfromthesky."
Mariasaying"whereGodstillpouredwaterfromthesky"showsthatshethinksthat
wherethereisalotofwaterisGod'sdoing.However,afterabsorbinginformation
fromRattan'sknowledgeaboutwater,Mariaquicklyrealizesthathavingfaithisa
meansofwhattheythinktheyknow,butactuallyisnotthewholepicture.Thiscan
beseenonpage44,"Maria'sfatherhadseentheworldcloudy,butthishydrologist
sawtheworldclear."Inotherwords,Maria'sfatherbelievedinfaith,buttoMaria,
thatdoesnotshoweverything.Whatdoesshoweverythingisinthemindofa
scientist(inthiscasehydrologist),thatseeseverything.
Inchapterfour,Case'stakeonthetopicisseen.Casesaid,"Allthose...fevered
people,fulloftheir...faith.Theirfaith...andtheythinkthatbecausetheyhavefaith,
theycanwishtheworldtobeanythingtheywantittobe."Throughthis,itisevident
thatCaseisnotthepersontohavefaith,ratherthroughscience,andthrough
science,patterns,data,details,planning,etc.Caseisthewomanwhoiscrazyabout
precision,andfaithtoherisnotaprecisemeanstogettohergoalofobtainingand
cuttingwater.Thisisbecause,asCaselaterexplains,"Ifwecan'tdescribeourreality
accurately,wecan'tseeit."JustaswhatJamiesimilarlysaid,"Thiswasabout
lookingandseeing.Puredata.Youdon'tbelievedata--youtestdata."Solikewiseto
Jamie,Casedependsonsciencetoseetheworldclearlybecausesciencegivesa
promisingresultasopposedtobelieving/faith.
Believing/religion/faithandscience/data/patternsappearregularlythroughout
thechaptersinsubtleanddistinctwaysthathelpsinunderstandingmoreabouta
character,abouthowscienceseeseverythingcomparedtohowfaithmakesa
characterthinktheyknoweverything,andhowhavingfaithisnotthesolutiontoa
betterlife.ThiscanallbesummedupthroughJamie'swords,"Thiswasneverabout
believing...Thiswasaboutlookingandseeing.Puredata.Youdon'tbelievedata--you
testdata."