The structure of scientific

revolution
Thomas Kuhn's perspective

The role of scientific tradition

A scientific community cannot practice
its trade without some set of received
beliefs. A PARADIGM must exist.
True or false? Is science the only area
that needs a paradigm? Can ANYTHING
function without a paradigm?
Examples?

What is the role of education?

The nature of the "rigorous and rigid"
preparation helps ensure that the
received beliefs are firmly fixed in the
student's mind.
True or false? Is this true with any kind
of education? Is there a difference
between "Beginning" and "more
advanced" education?
Examples?

What is the role of research?

Research is about confirming existing
concepts, and exploring their applications.
Research tends to work within a paradigm.
Kuhn says it is "a strenuous and devoted
attempt to force nature into the
conceptual boxes supplied by professional
education".
What do you think? Is it always that way?

How does progress occur?

When an anomaly undermines the basic
tenets of the current scientific practice
These tenets and assumptions no longer work
New assumptions must develop
New assumptions "paradigms" - require the
reconstruction of prior assumptions and the
re-evaluation of prior facts.
This is difficult and time consuming. Therefore
is also strongly resisted by the established
community.

Scientific revolution
This process is what Kuhn calls a
"scientific revolution", occurring through
paradigm-shift

How do paradigms emerge?

Researchers observe phenomena
Various "pre-paradigmatic"
interpretations emerge and compete
One interpretation seems better than
the others, and gains more and more
adherents
That interpretation becomes a
"paradigm"

After a paradigm is created

A paradigm transforms a group into a
profession or, at least, a discipline.
From this follows the formation of specialized
journals, the foundation of professional bodies
and a claim to a special place in academe.
There is a promulgation of scholarly articles
"addressed only to professional colleagues,
[those] whose knowledge of a shared
paradigm can be assumed and who prove to
be the only ones able to read the papers
addressed to them".

Once a paradigm exists

It resists change
Why?

Are there paradigms in

psychology?
Which ones?

Examples of paradigms in
psychology
The Cartesian (after Descartes) or
Newtonian paradigm: the person as a
mechanism, as a clock, as a computer
The evolutionary paradigm: the person
in change, as an adaptive organism, in
continuity with the other species
The ecological paradigm: the person as
part of a complex system

There are also "subparadigms"

Paradigms within sub-fields of
psychology.
They dictate what gets published etc.

Why is this relevant to the

history of psychology?
Because also, history is told from a
certain point of view, from a given
paradigm.
What, do you think, are the basic
assumptions of the text we are using?

The end