Furthermore,the changesin which thesediscoverieswere implicated were all destructiveas well as constructive. This small list of characteristics common to scientific communities has been drawn entirely from the practice of normal science, and it should have been. That effect seemed mechanical, not electricaP Moreover, since the casual fact-gatherer seldom possesses the time or the tools to be critical, the natural histories often juxtapose descriptions like the above with others, say, heating by antiperistasis or by cooling , that we are now quite unable to confirm. It and that is the work, Newton's of the period before remote anbetween No period here. Instead, testing occurs as part of the competition between two rival paradigms for the allegiance of the scientific community.
For example, if Newtonian theory is to provide a good approximate solution, the relative velocities of the bodies considered must be small compared with the velocity of light. No other work known to the history of sciencehas simultaneouslypermitted solarge an increasein both the scopeand precision-ofresearch. Even -solved formerly standard solutionsof problems are called in question. This is the tradition discussed by bi, Charles C. Let us, therefore,now take it for between successiveparadigms are I cilable.
Conversions will occur a few at a time until, after the last holdouts have died, the whole profession will again be practicing under a single, but now a different, paradigm. These textbooks expound the body of accepted theory, illustrate many or all of its successful applications, and compare these applications with exemplary observations and experiments. The Structure of Scientific Revolutions is that kind of book. History also suggests,however,somereasonsfor the difficul- developmentmakesfamiliar. To outsidersthey may, Iike the Balkan revolutions of the early twentieth century, seemnormal parts of the developmentalprocess.
But awarenessdid come' By the thirteenth centuiy Alfonso X could proclaim that if God had coosultedhim when creating the universe,he would have receivedgood advice. The ffnal stage in the development of this essay began with an invitation to spend the yeir 1958-59 at the cinter for Advancedstudiesin the Behavioralsciences. Pierre Noyes of the Lawrence Radiation Laboratory, and my student, John L. The second,to which the first is really a corollary, is rooted in the nature of scientificeducation. Second, the new paradigm must promise to preserve a relatively large part of the concrete problem-solving ability that has accru d to science through its predecessors.
And even then it occurs only after the sense of crisis has evoked an alternate candidate for paradigm. At least in the mature sciences, answers or full substitutes for answers to questions like these are firmly embedded in the educational initiation that prepares and licenses the student for professional practice. And in sectionXl we shall examinethe strongsupportprovided to the samehistoriographic schemaby the techniquesof efiectivesciencepedagogy. If it had not been, Newtonian physics would not have worked. There are always difficulties somewherein the paradigm-naturefit; most of them are set right sooneror later, often by processesthat could not have been foreseen.
All three of these categories-until recently no other significant sources of information about science have been available except through the practice of research-have one thing in common. The resulting transition to a new paradigm is scientificrevolution; a subjectthat we are at long last preparedto approach directly. On the one hand, he must determineby what man and at what point in time each contemporaryscientiffcfact, law, and theory was discoveredor invented. I agree with the description but think it no counterexample. But it does make them parts of a theory and, by doing so, subjects them to the same scrutiny regularly applied to theories in other fields. The analogy that relates the evolution of organisms to the evolution of scientific ideas can easily be pushed too far. Though discovering life on the moon would today be destructive of existing paradigms these tell us things about the moon that seem incompatible with life's existence there , discovering life in some less well-known part of the galaxy would not.
But if a paradigm is ever to triumph it must gain some first supporters, men who will develop it to the point where hardheaded arguments can be produced and multiplied. It follows, though the point will require extendeddiscussion,that a discoverylike that of oxygenor X-rays doesnot simply add one more item to the populatibn of the scientist'sworld. If that much is clear in the caseof the Copernicanrevolution, let us turn from it to a secondand rather different example,the crisisthat precededthe emergenceof Lavoisier'soxygentheory of combuslion. Introduction: A Role for History History, if viewed as a repository for more than anecdote or chronology, could produce a decisive transformation in the image of science by which we are now possessed. At least, th nature of the community provides such a guarantee if there is any way at all in which it can be provided.
To scientists those arguments are ordinarily the most significant and persuasive. Jean Taton Paris, 1956 , chaps. To my complete surprise, that exposure to out-of-date scientific theory and practice radically undermined some of my basic conceptions about the nature of science and the reasons for its special success. That commitmentand the apparent consensusit producesare prerequisitesfor normal science,i. Though logical inclusiveness remains a permissible view of the relation between successive scientific theories, it is a historical implausibility. Ask now why an enterprise like normal science should progress, and begin by recalling a few of its most salient characteristics. During the central decades of the century Fresnel, Stokes,and others devised numerous articulations of the ether theory designedto explain the failure to observe drift.