Some
KIs implicit in this Q are related to the idea of CHANGE and PROGRESS and
EVIDENCE: to what extent does knowledge change with time? How far can we agree
that an increase in knowledge is progressive?
In what ways does the emergence of better evidence give us good reason
to discard knowledge?
Examples
abound:
Arts:
the rejection of the Modernist approach to creating art in favour of the
Post-Modernist approach
H
Science (Economics): the discarding of classical (monetary) v neo-classical
(Keynesian) economic theory opposition in favour of the new 'Austrian school' approach to theory
History:
the discovery of new skull fossils helping to modify the knowledge of human
evolution
Maths:
the transition from flat plane Euclidean geometry to curved plane non-Euclidean
geometries
Ethics:
the gradual transition from religious value systems to humanist ones
Religion:
the Protestant re-interpretation of man’s relationship to God and rejection of
the traditional Catholic interpretation
Indigenous
knowledge systems: using insights of modern medicine to reject/enhance traditional Ayurvedic
practices
But
the one area, students will undoubtedly explore here will be N Sciences and the
notion of ‘paradigm shifts’. So let’s
take a closer look at the notion of CHANGE or PROGRESS involved in scientific
knowledge. There are two possible views
of progress of scientific knowledge:
1/
traditional view that scientific knowledge progresses in a LINEAR, CUMULATIVE
manner
The
example usually given is the transition from the medieval superstitious view of
the universe to Newton’s mechanistic view of it: Newton himself explained this
in terms of his famous quote: “If I have seen further it is by
standing on the shoulders of Giants”.
Implicit
in this way of thinking is the belief in scientific realism: the idea that
scientific theories must describe the truth of nature as exactly as possible;
that truths of nature are just waiting to be discovered and described
coherently by scientists; that new, better theory doesn’t negate or contradict
the old theory, but subsumes it and is a better description of nature than the
previous theory. The ultimate goal of science becomes the search for truth,
better predictive power of theory and the subsequent control over nature that
this gives.
2/
paradigmatic view that scientific knowledge progresses in a REVOLUTIONARY
manner
Implicit
in this way of thinking is a fundamental scepticism about scientific realism.
Instead, we are asked to think in terms of the idea that science is a puzzle
solving activity; it doesn’t seek to describe truth, but to engage with piecing
together how the natural world works within a context of cultural, social and
economic and scientific constraints that form the working ‘paradigm’ or set way
of doing science at the time. This
‘normal’ science, Kuhn argues, progresses in a cumulative way; but
‘revolutionary’ science challenges this approach. At first there is resistance from the ‘normal’
scientific community to the prospect of change.
However, in Kuhn’s model, new scientific knowledge, or a revolution,
occurs when a new theory solves puzzles better than the old theory, NOT because
it’s a more accurate representation
of reality, but because new knowledge replaces incompatible knowledge.
And of course,
THIS is how you’d explain that old chestnut of a TOK example: the transition
from the geocentric to heliocentric view of the universe.
Just remember:
Kuhn’s argument about the nature of scientific progress in knowledge is a counter-claim
to the traditional scientific realist argument about linear, cumulative
scientific progress in knowledge. Make
sure relevant examples support the respective arguments...
