Paradigm shift

The term paradigm shift was coined in 1962 by Thomas S. Kuhn and referred to in the philosophy of science and science-historical writings change basic framework for individual scientific theories, such as requirements " in terms of concept formation, monitoring and equipment ", which refers to Kuhn as a paradigm.

Clarification of Kuhn's " paradigm " concept is just like its systematic theories and his historical analyzes still controversial.

In the colloquial language is often spoken of "paradigm shift" in unspezifischerem sense. Either then are held to be particularly important scientific developments meant or for example a change of attitude towards life (such as basic values ​​concerning ) or other breaks in the lifeworld or technical contexts.

  • 2.1 Reactions to Kuhn
  • 2.2 Conceptual Alternatives

Kuhn's incommensurability

In Kuhn's structure of scientific revolutions

Kuhn goes to the usual representation of the fact that only within a particular paradigm individual scientific theories and hypotheses can be tested and compared in terms of their explanatory power (so-called incommensurability ). Therefore, the transition from one paradigm to another question no better rational argument or empirical evidence for better Kuhn. For it is the particular paradigm -dependent, capture the empirical finding any at all theoretical concepts which methodological requirements and what dispositions are for what kinds of observations by which ever comes as the relevant data in the view.

Reception

Regardless of the appearance was and is Kuhn's incommensurability thesis subject until today continued the philosophy of science and the history of science debates.

Terence Ball, for example, distinguishes between Kuhn 's thesis of perfect or strict incommensurability, Kuhn, especially in " The Structure of Scientific Revolutions " represents, and the thesis of non- perfect or only partial incommensurability in later texts. Ball argues that the strict incommensurability to Kuhn's paradigm shift internally inconsistent 'm doing, since theory and theory ' look completely different, incomparable phenomena. The abnormalities in T therefore could not possibly be explained by T ', if they were incommensurable in the strict sense. A competition between paradigms would not be possible. The partial incommensurability implies ' can translate at least some empirical phenomena in their own theory, certain meaning equivalents exist (think of translating one language to another ), and so anomalies in T by T' T and T explained can be.

Kuhn formulated in 1976, that he had not meant by incommensurability, in contrast to most of his readers believe that theories were not comparable, but that he was referring to incommensurability in the mathematical sense. This expression is evaluated in the secondary literature, inter alia, as a " betrayal " Kuhns even his " best previous insights " or at least as a result of a " linguistic turn " Kuhns or as unsatisfactory hint as Kuhn does not explain how then a comparison ever materialize could come, even the mathematical analogy was "not very plausible " because we are " nothing to do with the real numbers comparable " have simply "what you could use as a basis for comparison between two incommensurable entities ".

Debate on the concept of the paradigm shift

Reactions to Kuhn

Kuhn's approach represents a radical response to the problem of falsification and the idea of falsificationism (and also of verificationism ) dar. Other philosophers of science have tried also in response to Kuhn, hold on basic ideas of falsificationism and develop its explanation schemes.

Imre Lakatos and the early Paul Feyerabend have suggested that it does not go in the testing of theories about contradictions between an expressed in a single base rate observed fact and a theory, but contradictions between theories, especially a theory which explains this observation ( " observation theory "," background theory " ) and a theory to be tested. Could therefore on any return problems also are responding rationally by changing the " background theories ", but sticking to a defensible theory. In reconstructions of the history of science episodes then it was not a question, to test individual theories, but to analyze a specific set of theories. A reconstructed as a coherent theory sequence called Lakatos ' research program. "

Such a research program includes a case and a methodological rules on how to develop the theory and, if necessary, to protect if there is any problem. In order for a theory sequence can be reconstructed as scientific progress, the following conditions must be met by Lakatos: A recent theory predicts T2 facts that would not be expected from the standpoint of a previous theory T1 ( " theoretically progressive" ); such hypotheses are partially indeed confirmed empirically ( " empirically progressive" ); T2 can explain why T1 so far empirically proven.

Terence Ball has the conflict between Kuhn and his critics understood as a debate that " our central intellectual values ​​" refers not only epistemology and theoretical physics, but also eg social sciences, moral philosophy and political philosophy.

Conceptual alternatives

Within the philosophy of science and history were performed before and after Kuhn same or related events or episodes that Kuhn describes as a "paradigm shift", with varying systematically elaborated results and methods and in the history of science for the description of " scientific revolutions ", " theory dynamics " or " tried to describe theory change "applied concepts. So already used Ludwik Fleck, in a 1935 study vielrezipierten the concept of " thinking styles ".

633127
de