Scientific Theories Essay Example for Free

Scientific Theories Essay One of the major preoccupations of XX’s century scientific philosophers was the development of complex scientific theory explaining how science comes to be and how it works. Since 1900-s several basic theories have been proposed to explain science. This paper aims to provide an overview of those theories especially concentrating on ideas of scientific revolution by Thomas S. Kuhn. Already David Hume in â€Å"A Treatise of Human Nature† noticed, that we can never truly prove the existence of casual laws but we can only perceive them and their consequences. And as we can not know the truth about laws, we can never know the law itself, so it is always open for reconsideration. W.V. Quine went even further by proposing, that even mathematical theorems can from time to time be revised if necessary. Thusly they have created grounds for illogical negativism, under which no statement can be recognized absolutely true. In the 1920-s Moritz Schlicks and Hans Reichenbach offered another view which they called logical positivism. Basically recognizing that no statement can be true or false a priory, logical positivists held that every piece of knowledge is based on logics of â€Å"protocol sentences† based on observable events. In order to be recognized true or false a statement is to meet a verifiability criterion. Only in this case a statement can be recognized meaningful. However, some of the positivists noticed, that even non-verifiable statements may have some cognitive value[1]. In the 1930-s Karl Popper raised criticism against positivist model and introduced a theory based on ideas of practicing scientists. Under his idea scientific progress is achieved by rejection of earlier false theories and creation of a new theory when the old one no longer fits the empiric facts. The new theory is therefore closer to truth. So physics of Aristotle has been replaced by physics of Newton and physics of Newton by the one of Einstein. Every new theory explains the world in new terms and on a new level, Progressive theory has been sharply criticized by Thomas Kuhn in his â€Å"Structure of Scientific Revolutions†, published in 1962. Under his idea, scientific progress is a set of dominant structures, which he called paradigms.   Scientific research passes through stages of â€Å"normal† development including solving of current problems and â€Å"revolutionary stage†. Revolutionary stage or paradigm shift means testing of new theories and assumptions which causes a state of crisis in the old theories, when paradigms are sufficiently unprecedented to attract an enduring group of adherents away from competing modes of scientific activity[2] For Kuhn a new paradigm is not only a new theory, but a totally new view on the world and a new way of thinking. A paradigm is not a new answer to a question, but it is revolutionary new way of putting questions themselves. Core questions of the old paradigm are rejected by a new one as those, which are no longer applicable[3]. Moreover, one paradigm can not be understood in terms of another paradigm, so changing paradigms necessarily causes a crisis. Kuhn explained this using examples from astronomy by noticing that Given a particular discrepancy, astronomers were invariably able to eliminate it by making some particular adjustment in Ptolemy’s system of compounded circles. But astronomy’s complexity was increasing far more rapidly than its accuracy and that a discrepancy corrected in one place was likely to show up in another.[4] Paradigm changes the world itself, and Kuhn offers an example of Lavoisier, who saw nature differently after discovering oxygen[5]. After scientific revolution has happened, communications are to restored between advocates of new and old theories. This is a hard and long lasting process, which often ends by physical death of the â€Å"old† scientists, because Conversions will occur a few at a time until, after the last hold-outs have died, the whole profession will again be practicing under a single, but now different, paradigm[6].   This caused claims of relativism which Kuhn himself denied in the later editions of his book. However, despite of all, Kuhn’s idea have deeply influenced the modern philosophic vocabulary. Such terms as â€Å"paradigm†, â€Å"paradigm shift†, â€Å"normal science† and â€Å"revolutionary science† are now widely applied by scientists and philosophers, especially in social science, political science and international relations theory[7]. Among the latest critics one should mention reasoning by Paul Feyerabend. He noticed, that there were many cases in the history of science, when scientists considered their theories a priory accurate long after some facts are discovered, which demonstrate the weakness of the theory. Under Feyerabend’s assumption there exist certain forms of scientific thinking, which allow scholars to recognize certain theories as scientific. So methodology of science can be pluralistic and include methods from different periods. New methods of reasoning do not substitute old ones, but they enter the scientific cannon together and mutually influence each other[8]. Works Cited Friedman, Michael, (1999) Reconsidering Logical Positivism. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press Thomas S. Kuhn (1996) The Structure of Scientific Revolutions, University Of Chicago Press; 3 edition Fuller S. (2000) Thomas Kuhn: A Philosophical History for Our Times. Chicago: University of Chicago Press Bird A. (2000) Thomas Kuhn. Princeton and London: Princeton University Press and Acumen Press Paul K. Feyerabend (1999) Knowledge, Science and Relativism. Vol. 3, Cambridge [1]   Friedman, Michael, (1999) Reconsidering Logical Positivism. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press, p,- 43 [2] Thomas S. Kuhn   (1996) The Structure of Scientific Revolutions, University Of Chicago Press; 3 edition, p.-10 [3] Fuller S. (2000) Thomas Kuhn: A Philosophical History for Our Times. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. p.-70 [4] Thomas S. Kuhn   (1996) ibidem, p.-65 [5] Supra note, p.- 118 [6] Supra note, p.-152 [7] Bird A. (2000) Thomas Kuhn. Princeton and London: Princeton University Press and Acumen Press. p.- 113 [8] See: Paul K. Feyerabend (1999) Knowledge, Science and Relativism. Vol. 3, Cambridge University Press