1. Introduction: A role for history.
History, if it is seen more as a repertoire rather than as anecdotal or chronology, could produce a decisive transformation in the image of science which we now possess. The image that has been made before, even by scientists themselves, mainly from the study of finished scientific achievements as recorded in the classical works and, more recently, in the textbooks studied by every new generation of scientists to practice honesty .
However, the history of any of the new concept will not come if the historical data are being sought and scrutinized mainly to answer questions raised by the stereotypes that are not historical and are taken from science textbooks. If science was facts, theories and methods are collected in books tesk present, then the scientists are the ones who succeed or not, trying to donate a certain constellation of elements into it. DEVELOPMENT science into a growing pile processes that make up techniques and knowledge of science.
But in recent years some historians of science argue that fulfill the functions assigned to them by the concept of development with the accumulation of more and more difficult. As the accretion process chain of recording they found that additional research that lead to more difficult, not easier, to answer questions such as: when oxygen is found? who first discovered the concept of energy saving?
The new findings in theory is not the only scientific events that have a revolutionary impact on the specialization area became the scene of the incident. Commitments which controls normal science is also not only determine the types of entities (entities) what was contained by the universe, but also, by implication, entities-entities that do not contain.
2. Paths to normal science.
In this essay, normal science means research firmly based on one or more past scientific achievements, achievements by the scientific community in particular when expressed as a foundation donor at the next practice. Current achievements were recounted, although rare in its original form, by science text books elementary level and advanced level. The books were popular in the early 19th century, famous classic books work: Physica works of Aristotle, the Almagest work Ptolemaeus, Principda and Opticks Newton's work, the work of Franklin Electricity, Lavoisier Chemistery work, and the work of Lyell's geology. They can do so because it had the same essential characteristics. Their achievement is quite new, and had never been there before.
Achievement also have both these characteristics I will henceforth call "Paradigm", a term which is closely related to the "normal science". By selecting this term I mean to propose that some real examples of accepted scientific practice - examples which together cover the proposition, theory, application and intrumentasi - present models thereof born particular coherent traditions of scientific research. Because in this essay will often replace the paradigm concept ideas known, then more needs to be said about the reasons for its use.
The separation of the areas in which there has been a steady paradigm since prehistoric times, such as mathematics and astronomy, as well as emerging fields with division and recombination, such as biochemistry, the above is a typical situation historis.Namun history also suggests several reasons for the difficulty encountered on the road. In the absence of a paradigm or prospective paradigm, all the facts that may be a part of a particular scientific developments tend to seem equally relevant.
3. Nature of normal science
In use the established paradigm is accepted model or pattern, and it has allowed maknannya aspect, because it has not had a better word for taking paradigm, for its own purposes here. But soon it will be clear that the definition of models and patterns that allow retrieval paradigm is not the same true in the sense that is used to define the paradigm. In applying this standard, allowing replication to function paradigm examples of each in principle to replace it. On the other hand, in a scientific paradigm is rarely an object of replication, however, such as judicial decisions received in the unwritten law, it is an object for the explication and more details in the new state or harder.
To find out how it can happen, we must remember how very limited the paradigm, both in scope and in accuracy, when it first appeared. Paradigms gain status as rival darpada more successful in solving some of the problems that began to be recognized by pemraktek group that was prone to problems.
Three actual focus of scientific investigation, namely:
- The first is the class of the facts that have been disclosed by a paradigm that greatly exposes certain properties.
- Both are regular but smaller than the facts rulings addressed to the facts, though often without much intrinsic interest, can be compared directly with the theoretical forecasts paradigm.
- Third is intended to articulate a paradigm. These experiments, more than others, may resemble exploration, and especially very often used in the periods and in science-the science that deals more with the qualitative aspects rather than the quantitative aspects of the regularity of nature.
4. The Normal Science as a puzzle solver
In the 18th century, for example, little attention has been given to experiments that measure the electrical traction with devices such as the balance sheet. Because the results were consistent and simple, the experiments could not be used to articulate the paradigm that down. Therefore, the experiments it remains a fact that is not related and can not be attributed to continued progress in the research of electricity.
Ushering in a normal research problem to a conclusion is achieving what was anticipated in a new way, and this requires solving all kinds of puzzles instrumental, conceptual and mathematically complicated. People who managed to prove that he is an expert puzzle solver, and the challenge of the puzzle is an important part of what is usually pushed.
Nevertheless, the individuals involved in the normal research problems that almost never worked on any of these things between. Once engaged, the motivation is somewhat different kind. Were then challenged is the belief that, if he is skilled enough, he will be skilled to solve the puzzle that has never been solved or solved more perfectly by anyone.
The presence of this strong commitment network, the conceptual, theoretical and instrumental, and methodological, is a metaphor that connects the main source of normal science to solving the puzzle. Because he presents the rules that say to pemraktek specialties like what the world has matured and that his science, pemraktek confidently focus its attention on esoteric issues that defined him by the existing knowledge and by these rules.
5. Advantages Paradigm
A careful historical investigation against a certain specialties on certain days at certain times reveal a set of repetitive information and kuasistandar about the application of various theories in conceptual, observational, and instrumental. These are paradigms of society expressed in textbooks, lectures, and laboratory practices. Although sometimes there is ambiguity, the paradigm of paradigm-mature scientific community can be determined with relative ease. And indeed the presence of a paradigm need not menyiratkanpun that there is a complete set of rules.
Paradigm - a paradigm could be superior, more binding, and more complete device darpada any of the rules for research, which is not diragukanpasti paradigms abstracted from it.
6. Anomaly and the emergence of science discovery.
The discovery begins with the awareness of anomaly, ie, with the recognition that nature, in a way, has been driven by the hope of breaking the paradigm that controls normal science. Then he continues with a more or less extended exploration of the anomalous region. And he only ended when the paradigm theory has been adjusted so that it becomes distorted expected. Pengasimilasian a new kind of facts requires more than an additional adjustment to the theory, and before the adjustment is complete, before scientists know how to look at nature in a different way, the fact that it was not a new scientific fact.
7. Crisis and the emergence of scientific theories
Changes involving these findings all are destructive and constructive at the same time. But the discovery or not, the only source of destructive paradigm - kostruktif changed. We will begin reviewing similar changes, but usually larger, due to the creation of new theories.
In understanding the emergence of new theories, can not we will expand our understanding of the views and discoveries. Nonetheless it is not kesalinglingkupan identity. If the awareness of anomaly plays a role in the emergence of the kinds of new symptoms, then it would not be surprising that a similar awareness, but more profound, a prerequisite for change theory will be accepted. Because the paradigm demands massive and profound changes in the problems and techniques of normal science. The emergence of the theories is generally preceded by a period of uncertainty that is very visible in the profession. Philosophers of science have repeatedly demonstrated that the group of certain data can always be given more than one theoretical construction. The history of science shows that, especially in the early stages of the development of a new paradigm, even not so difficult to create such alternatives.
8. Response to the crisis
We assume that the crisis is a necessary and important preconditions for the emergence of new theories. Although they may lose faith and then to consider alternatives, they do not abandon the paradigm that has led them into crisis. This means that they do not perform as a anomalies substitute case even though the philosophy of science vocabulary so.
However, this does mean-what would eventually become the central issue - that the act of considering the lead scientists reject the theory that originally received it is always based on more than a comparison of the theory with the world. Decision to reject a paradigm is always simultaneously the decision to accept another, and the judgment which resulted in a decision that involves a comparison of the paradigms with nature and with each other.
Normal science must continually strive and strive to bring theory and fact closer to conformity, and activities that can easily be viewed as an examiner or searcher confirmation and falsification. This means that if an anomaly will lead to a crisis, usually need more than just an anomaly. There is always a difficulty in match natural paradigm; sooner or later most were straightened, often with processes which may not be foreseen.
Sometimes normal science ultimately was able to handle the problems that generate crisis although no decision on those who see it as the end of an existing paradigm. The transition from a paradigm in crisis to a new paradigm that may arise therefrom of a new tradition of normal science was far from a cumulative process that is achieved by articulation or extension of the previous lama.antisipasi paradigm can help us recognize the crisis as an appropriate prelude to the emergence of new theories , especially since we have examined a small version of the same process in discussing the emergence of a discovery.
The new paradigm often appear, at least as an embryo, before the crisis evolved away or have been recognized by the firm. Proliferation of competing articulations, the willingness to try anything, the disclosure of which is real discontent, each is a symptom of a normal transition from research to special research. The idea of normal science relies more than the existence of all these revolutions.
9. Nature and necessity of Scientific Revolution
At a time when society was divided into two groups or parties competing, the one trying to defend the old institutional constellation and the other seeks to establish a new one. And if the polarization that occurs, then the political settlement failed. Because they are at odds on reaching the place the institutional matrix and assess political change, because there is no supraintitusional recognized by them to adjudicate disputes using a revolutionary techniques of mass persuasion, often involving force. Although the revolution has a vital role in the evolution of political institutions, the role of the revolution depends on whether it is an event that most ekstrapolitis and ekstraintitusional.
As in political revolutions, in the selection paradigmapun no higher standard than the consent of the peoples concerned. To reveal how the scientific revolution influenced, we not only have to examine the impact of the nature and impact of logic, but also the techniques of persuasive argumentation effective within groups of highly specialized science that make up the community.
Something even more fundamental than the standards and values, however, are at stake. Up here I have argued only that paradigms are essential to science. Now I want to demonstrate an understanding that it is essential paradigms for nature.
10. Revolution as an amendment to the world
Even more important, during revolutions scientists see new things and different when they use instruments that are very familiar to look at the places he had ever seen. In science, if the perception changes accompanying changes in paradigm, we do not expect the scientists directly support these changes, when looking at the moon, people are turning to Copernicanisme not say, "I usually look at the planet, but I see sekarng satellite," it would imply the expression the Ptolemaic system ever true. Instead of the GCC switch to the new Astronomy said, "I used to regard the moon as a planet, but I was wrong." That statement was repeated after a scientific revolution. If it is usually disguise the scientific outlook changes or other mental transformation effect is the same, we can not expect a direct testimony about the change. However, we must look for indirect evidence or evidence of behavior that is enumerated by scientists with the new paradigm looks different than he had seen before it.
11. seems revolution
Up here I have tried to demonstrate revolutions with illustrations, and examples can be doubled up to a sickening level. However, it is clear that most deliberately chosen because it is known, is usually regarded not as a revolution, but in addition to scientific knowledge.
However, as a pedagogical vehicle for preserving normal science, textbooks have to be rewritten in whole or in part if the language, the structure of the problem, or normal science standards changed. In short, the textbooks have to be rewritten after the revolution of science and, after re-written, it will inevitably disguise not only the role, but also the revolution that produced it. Unless his lifetime personal experience of revolution, historical consciousness of scientists and lay people who work literature reader textbook only expand as a result of the new revolution in the field.
More than any aspect of science, the pedagogical emphasize our image of science and the nature of the role in the progress of discovery and creation.
12. Solving Revolution
Text books which we have just discussed is only produced as a result of scientific revolutions. They are the basis of a new tradition of normal science. Inevitable in times of revolution seems tough and stubborn beliefs, and sometimes it becomes so. However, it is also an advantage. The same belief is what allows for normal science or science that breaks the puzzle. And only that which is normal science community through professional scientists succeeded, first in utilizing the potential and scope of the old paradigm petition, and then the difficulty of isolating through studies that could lead to a new paradigm.
It does not state that the new paradigm ultimately win through mystical aesthetics. In contrast, very few people are leaving tradition just because of these reasons. Often they are turning it misled. However, if a paradigm however have to win, he must obtain some supporters, the people who will develop it to the point when the arguments that can be made stubborn and doubled.
13. Progression through the revolution
Why is it an advantage that progress almost reserved for activities that we call science? The most usual answer to that question was already rejected in the body of this essay. We must conclude by asking whether a replacement can be found.
We must learn to be aware of what we normally think of it as a cause of the effect. If we can do this, phrases such as "progress of science" and "scientific objectivity" will be appear as if partially exaggerated. Actually, one aspect of the redundancy just described.
However, when viewed from within a that anywhere, whether scientist or non-scientist public, the result of successful creative work that is progress.
Last paragraph shows the direction, which I believe a better solution to the problem of scientific progress should be sought. Perhaps they indicate that the progress of science was not really like that we consider. Howeverthey showed that a type of progress will give character on science activities during the last activity. In science there should be no other kind of progress. To be more precisely, maybe we should let go of the mind, expressly and impliedly, that the paradigm carry scientists and those who learn from it getting closer to the truth.
Up until now been almost seven years since the book was first published. Meanwhile, both the critics and the response of my own work which in turn has enhanced my understanding of some of the problems caused. Some of the principal difficulties of my original text in groups around the concept of paradigm. And I begin the discussion of the difficulties. At least physiologically, meaning both of these paradigms is deeper than the two, and claim that I made over a major source of controversy and misunderstanding that caused this book, especially for charges that I made from a subjective science into activities and irrational.
The term paradigm into the early pages of the foregoing, and the inclusion of how it is essentially circular. The paradigm is what is held in common by members of a scientific community, and conversely, the science community made up of people who have a common paradigm.
Knowledge-science, like language, is intrinsically the common property of a group, if not altogether nothing. To understand it we need to know the characteristics of a group-specific characteristics that create and use them.