KUHN, Thomas Samuel( Amer. historian and philosopher)
Comments for KUHN, Thomas Samuel
Biography KUHN, Thomas Samuel
(1922-1996) - Amer. historian and philosopher, one of the leaders of historical and evolutionary trends in philosophy of science. Developed conception of history. dynamics of scientific knowledge, to the paradise-formed the basis of the theory of scientific rationality is radically different from the logical-positivist and 'critical-ratsionalistich. " representations of science.
To. made by a critic inductivist and kumulyativistskih models reconstructing the history of science inherent logical. positivism. Science, in his view, is not a gradual accumulation of truth, is gaining in 'pure' (ie. not depending on theor. assumptions and hypotheses) experience. The rationality of science is not limited to the amount of logical. rules of formation and transformation of scientific judgments, the value of ryh-certified processes 'verification' (experimental verification) and the reduction to the observations, cut-to-you ryh can be represented as 'basic' ( 'protocol') proposals. Historian uncritically receptive positivist orientation, is doomed to distort the real history of science, moreover, the lack of understanding of what is the content and essence of scientific activity. K. rejected the logical-positivist solution 'demarcation', ie. holding tight delimit the lines between science and non-science, is applying logical. and 'verification' criteria to analyze the language of scientific theories.
To. made against the criteria of 'demarcation', offer a 'critical. rationalists' led to. Popper. The essence of their approach was to demand: the boundaries of science should coincide with the boundaries of rac. critics. The latter is based on logic and methodology. imperative: bring 'bold' (ie. encompassing explanation for the maximum range of known phenomena) hypotheses and subject them to the most stringent experimental verification, . refuted the hypothesis is rejected as false and bring them to replace the new, the process is endless, . and it sells state of knowledge of the truth,
. Activity that does not meet these requirements can not be considered scientific in the strict sense, and is not fully rational. The fact that scientists do not always comply with the requirements of scientific rationality, explains the psychology of scientific creativity or board-l. 'extra-scientific' factors, but it is not relevant to the theory of scientific rationality, on the basis of swarm-based regulatory model for the development of science.
To. did not deny the importance of the problem of 'demarcation', but I was searching for her otherwise. Hd. Unlike other areas of science from the spiritual and intellectual activities, according to K., in that only in science there are rac. verification procedures experienced judgments, and the rationality of these procedures is taken as something indisputable and unequivocal. Criticism and rational manner within the unity that is not subject to criticism - taken samples of scientific activities. When the criticism is drawn to the designs themselves, it breaks with the accepted criteria of rationality and forced to find new support. While such support is not, rac. criticism impossible. However, in the history of science (unlike, for example. From the history of philosophy) are practically no periods criterial vacuum. Rather, the space between the choice decomp. systems of criteria of rationality even too full, and therefore the choice can be committed under the influence not only the 'cognitive' factors, but directly depends on belief, authority, social-psychological. atmosphere and traditions of the 'scientific communica-in', as well as on many other socio-cultural impacts. Such situations to. called 'extraordinary' or 'revolution. " science. Getting in such situations, science not only shows no differentia specifica, but on the contrary, it is similar to other areas of mental activity, eg., The disputes of philosophers or lovers of art, astrology or psychoanalysts. Only in periods of 'normal' scientific activity can be strictly distinguish science from the fact that science is not.
To. distinguished between two kinds of criticism. Rats. criticism - criticism based on accepted standards of rationality. Nerats. criticism arises in times of crisis, when even the criteria of rationality problematiziruyutsya. Thus, the rationality of science is subordinate to the decisions ezoterich. circle of leaders, authorities, experts, to the rye-impose their understanding of sound - through the educational system and Prof.. training - the other participants of scientific communica-va.
The aim of the scientist - not the truth (this term is redundant in describing the scientific activity), and the decision of the conceptual or instrumental 'puzzles'. Success is rewarded by recognition of the scientific communica-va; people's opinion, not included in the communication of it, generally ignored or considered to be low. as. Therefore, on the one hand, the communication of science is extremely conservative in their assessments of their own rationality (this is conservative - a condition of unity and community), with dp. hand, it is almost always tuned to a total negation of 'other' of rationality, claiming the same decision 'puzzles'.
The concept of the process of science, based on the idea of increasing the scientific validity of judgments, according to K., is excluded from the philosophical and methodological. reflection. Based on the most important decisions (eg, associated with the choice of basic scientific theory), taken by scientists, primarily to be found in Sociology. and psychological. circumstances of their activities, especially when the role of tools claim to explain several scientific theories. Logical. analysis of situations of choice may be completely useless, since the 'paradigm' (the dominant patterns solving scientific problems - 'puzzles') and set its own logic, and in different paradigms may have different logic.
Psychology and sociology (rather than normative 'logic of scientific research') are intended to explain why the 'normal' periods, scientists stubbornly cling to their theory adopted. base, . while often ignoring the explanatory potential of competing 'paradigms', . sometimes not even paying attention to the contradictions between experience and explanation, . obtained under 'its paradigm', . or trying to resolve these contradictions by ad hoc hypotheses, . in periods of 'crisis' painfully looking for opportunities to 'gestalt-switching' (this can be compared with those, . a man, . saw in the picture of Psychology,
. test 'duck', with great difficulty makes itself seen in the same figure, 'rabbit').
The scientific process, as understood by K. does not occur in 'pure world of ideas and issues' that exists regardless of whether the acts in this world someone humane. consciousness, whether it participates in the history of this world. Decisions of scientific communica-in accepted in a competitive struggle between them, as well as under the influence of the entire socio-cultural life of the Society, in a rum-scientific teams are a small portion. Hence the socio-cultural (in the first place - the socio-psychological. and Sociology.) arising from the criterion of rationality, to the real essence of rye-thinking products, processes, subject to historical. changes.
The image of science, proposed by AK, is a departure from classical. rationalism, rationality in an attempt to fit a number of humane. predilections and peculiarities of Concrete. cultural epochs. Rationality is filled with pragmatic. meaning: a man forced to constantly prove their rationality is not unsourced true reason, but the success of its activities. Therefore, achieving success, he has the right to call his work reasonably in defense of this view in the face of competing views about the wisdom and success of action. Each 'scientific communica-vo' itself judge of its rationality. But the freedom and rationality Dep. individual is limited by collective action and mind 'communica-va', in which K. continues the tradition of classical. sociology of knowledge and sociology of science (Durkheim, Scheler).
By Position. repeatedly been criticized for its 'irrationality' and 'relativism', but these accusations make sense only from the standpoint of classical. rationalism. K. was aimed at finding more flexible and closer to 'reality' of rationalism. In the basis of this search - as well as other sovr. audits of rationalism - the disappointment of unconditional benchmarks cultural history and the propensity to mosaic, kaleidoscopic and pluralistic. vision of the world and man's place in it. Concept K. be placed in a number of ideas, experience, relevant socio-cultural criticism, to-swarm was subjected to 'philosophy of the subject', goes back to classical. Europes. transcendentalism. In some moments, the concept resonates with the ideas of postmodern philosophy.