Normal Science is a Puzzle

[coberst]

Normal science is a puzzle

Normal science is a puzzle-solving enterprise. Normal science is a slow accumulation of knowledge by a methodical step-by-step process undertaken by a group of scientists.

‘Paradigm’ is a word that was given great meaning and clarity by Thomas Kuhn in his book “The Structure of Scientific Revolutions”.

“One of the things a scientific community acquires with a paradigm is a criterion for choosing problems that, while the paradigm is taken for granted, can be assumed to have solutions…A paradigm can, for that matter, even insulate the community from those socially important problems that are not reducible to the puzzle form, because they cannot be stated in terms of the conceptual and instrumental tools the paradigm supplies.”

The author notes that all “real science is normally a habit-governed, puzzle-solving activity” and not a philosophical activity. Paradigm and not hypothesis is the active meaning for the ‘new image of science’. Paradigm is neither a theory nor a metaphysical viewpoint.

Kuhn’s new image of science—the paradigm—is an artifact (a human achievement), a way of seeing, and is a set of scientific problem solving habits. Normal science means research based upon one or more past achievements ‘that some particular community acknowledges for a time as supplying the foundation for its further practice…and these achievements are sufficiently unprecedented to attract an enduring group pf adherents away from competing modes of scientific activity’ furthermore they are sufficiently open-ended to leave all sorts of problems for the redefined group of practitioners to solve’. Such achievements Kuhn defines as paradigm.

“A puzzle-solving paradigm, unlike a puzzle-solving hypothetico-deductive system, has also got to be a concrete ‘way of seeing’.”

Kuhn constantly refers to the ‘gestalt switch’ when discussing the switch in reference from one paradigm to another as ‘re-seeing’ action. Each paradigm has been constructed to be a ‘way-of-seeing’. Here Kuhn is speaking not about what the paradigm is but how the paradigm is used. He is defining a paradigm as a newly developed puzzle-solving artifact that is used analogically to understand another artifact; for example, using wire and beads strung together to facilitate understanding the protein molecule.

I think that we place “Science” on too high a pedestal and thereby distort our comprehension of political and social problems. We cannot solve social and political problems like we solve the questions formed by the normal sciences.

Do you think that the techniques of normal science are directly applicable for solving the problems of society?

 

[chriswl]

Most actual practitioners of science don't seem to reckon much to Kuhn's ideas. Except for social scientists who feel flattered by the implication that their field is no more arbitrary and no less rigorous than, say, theoretical physics.

 

[Dancing David]

Uh, science is a mthod, you can apply science to all areas, you can also misuse the word science.

I think people place thier moral/ethical/social construct on too high a pedestal and need to re-evaluate them all the time.

The word science can be abused as readily as another.

 

[a_unique_person]

I have said before, and I'll say it again, just for the benefit of everyone here, politics is the bleeding edge of scepticism, which, as far as I can tell, is closely related to science. I would hope that one day we could take politics beyond it's current state of total debauchery, becase politics is an important part of our lives.

 

[coberst]

Uh, science is a mthod, you can apply science to all areas, you can also misuse the word science.

I think people place thier moral/ethical/social construct on too high a pedestal and need to re-evaluate them all the time.

The word science can be abused as readily as another.

The OP focuses on 'normal science' as defined by Kuhn.

 

[phildonnia]

We cannot solve social and political problems like we solve the questions formed by the normal sciences.

Do you think that the techniques of normal science are directly applicable for solving the problems of society?

Social science is a good example of "protoscience": Theories are incomplete, data is insufficient, and analytical techniques are primitive.

In some sense, a parallel can be drawn to astronomy in ancient times: people had fuzzy ideas about what made it all go, and were able to do some mediocre prediction, but for hundreds of years, it would have seemed fair to say that "we cannot solve astronomy problems like we solve the questions of normal sciences, (like, say, geometry)."

This does not necessarily mean that the method of science will forever be useless; and in any case, it's usually never worse than the method of "making [Rule 8] up".

 

[coberst]

Social science is a good example of "protoscience": Theories are incomplete, data is insufficient, and analytical techniques are primitive.

In some sense, a parallel can be drawn to astronomy in ancient times: people had fuzzy ideas about what made it all go, and were able to do some mediocre prediction, but for hundreds of years, it would have seemed fair to say that "we cannot solve astronomy problems like we solve the questions of normal sciences, (like, say, geometry)."

This does not necessarily mean that the method of science will forever be useless; and in any case, it's usually never worse than the method of "making [Rule 8] up".

I recently had occasion to hang out in the waiting area of St Joseph Hospital in Asheville for a few hours. I was free to walk many of the corridors and rest in many of the waiting areas along with everyone else. It was early morning but it was obvious that the hospital functioned fully 24/7.

A person can walk the corridors of any big city hospital and observe the effectiveness of human rationality in action. One can also visit the UN building in NYC or read the morning papers and observe just how ineffective, frustrating and disappointing human rationality can be. Why does human reason perform so well in some matters and so poorly in others?

We live in two very different worlds; a world of technical and technological order and clarity, and a world of personal and social disorder and confusion. We are increasingly able to solve problems in one domain and increasingly endangered by our inability to solve problems in the other.

Normal science is successful primarily because it is a domain of knowledge controlled by paradigms. The paradigm defines the standards, principles and methods of the discipline. It is not apparent to the laity but science moves forward in small incremental steps. Science seldom seeks and almost never produces major novelties.

Science solves puzzles. The logic of the paradigm insulates the professional group from problems that are unsolvable by that paradigm. One reason that science progresses so rapidly and with such assurance is because the logic of that paradigm allows the practitioners to work on problems that only their lack of ingenuity will keep them from solving.

Science uses instrumental rationality to solve puzzles. Instrumental rationality is a systematic process for reflecting upon the best action to take to reach an established end. The obvious question becomes ‘what mode of rationality is available for determining ends?’ Instrumental rationality appears to be of little use in determining such matters as “good” and “right”.

There is a striking difference between the logic of technical problems and that of dialectical problems. The principles, methods and standards for dealing with technical problems and problems of “real life” are as different as night and day. Real life problems cannot be solved using deductive and inductive reasoning.

Dialectical reasoning requires the ability to slip quickly between contradictory lines of reasoning. One needs skill to develop a synthesis of one point of view with another. Where technical matters are generally confined to only one well understood frame of reference real life problems become multi-dimensional totalities.
When we think dialectically we are guided by principles not by procedures. Real life problems span multiple categories and academic disciplines. We need point-counter-point argumentation, we need emancipatory reasoning to resolve dialectical problems. We need critical thinking skills and attitudes to resolve real life problems.

How to build the atomic bomb is a technical problem. Whether to build the bomb or what to do with it after it is built is a real life problem.

The critically self-conscious learner is a person who has developed a passion for rational solutions to problematic ends. Instrumental rationality is designed to solve problems of means when the end is clear. Normal science, the science of means, is guided and controlled by paradigms. Paradigms are single dimensional structures that insure that means solutions do not stray from the straight and narrow.

Such systems are designed for puzzle solutions that are perfectly acceptable for single dimensional problems. The problematic situation that presents itself is just how to approach the determination of ends when such matters are mostly multi-dimensional without paradigms and generally demanding the agreement of two or more reflective agents. There are no paradigms for multi-dimensional problems.

Instrumental rationality is not a method suitable for developing ends. Dialectical rationality is the only mode of reasoning suitable for arriving at satisfactory ends.

In a criminal jury trial each juror ideally begins hearing the case as a mental blank slate. The witnesses engage in a controlled and guided dialogue wherein each witness communicates to the jury their particular truth regarding the matter under consideration. Each juror modifies his or her blank slate as the witness’s parade through; each providing his or her view of the truth. A dialogue takes place for the benefit of the juror who is not a member of the dialogue.

Each juror is required to reason dialectically. Dialectical reasoning is a process wherein the opinion of the juror is molded and remolded based upon the truths presented. The blank slate becomes slate A after witness A and then becomes slate A-B after witness B and then becomes slate A-B-C, etc.

At the end of the trial the jurors assemble in isolation to determine a verdict. Generally the members are polled to determine if all agree upon the truth of the case. If one or more jurors dissent from the others a new dialogue must take place. The jurors begin a dialogue in an attempt to reach a unanimous decision.

In this stage each juror is engaged in communication in dialogue while simultaneously each juror is engaged in a rational dialectic.

A jury trial might be a useful example of a problem engaged by many reflective agents with a multiplicity of frames of reference. In such a situation the jury must utilize communicative techniques to enter into a dialogue wherein there is a constant dialectic until a unanimous solution is reached or deadlock prevails.

Communicating by dialogue together with reasoning dialectically is a technique for attempting to solve multi-dimensional problems. Problems that are either not pattern like or that the pattern is too complex to ascertain.

Most problems that we face in our daily life are multi-dimensional in nature. Simple problems that occur daily in family life are examples. Each member of the family has a different point of view with differing needs and desires. Most of the problems we constantly face are not readily solved by mathematics because they are not pattern specific and are multi-dimensional.

Dialogue is a technique for mutual consideration of such problems wherein solutions grow in a dialectical manner. Through dialogue each individual brings his/her point of view to the fore by proposing solutions constructed around their specific view. All participants in the dialogue come at the solution from the logic of their views. The solution builds dialectically; from a thesis and a contrasting thesis, a synthesis is constructed that takes into consideration both proposals. From this synthesis, a new thesis has developed.

When we are dealing with single dimensional problems well circumscribed by paradigms the personal biases of the subject are of small concern. In multi-dimensional problems, without the advantage of paradigms, the biases of the problem solvers become a serious source of error. One important task of dialogue is to illuminate these prejudices. These biases may be quite subtle and often out of the consciousness of the participant holding them.

Dialogic, the combination of dialogue and dialectic, is the only form of rationalization available for multilogical problems. Induction and deduction are aspects of the act of dialogic but are not sufficient alone for this needed communication form of rationalization.

Our schools have decided that our children should learn to be critical thinkers. I agree with their judgment. This disciplined form of thought is important to each child and is vitally important to our society. I have attempted to relay to you my sense of the importance of critical thinking in the hope that you may share that judgment and lend your support to the school system in this vital matter.

 

[drkitten]

Our schools have decided that our children should learn to be critical thinkers. I agree with their judgment.

Good. I suggest you start with yourself.

 

[I less than three logic]

What is “normal” science? Is there “abnormal” science? Does pseudoscience fall under either of those categories or is it one onto itself?

ETA - Yes I read the OP, but it didn't seem to explain why it was termed “normal”.

 

[drkitten]

What is “normal” science? Is there “abnormal” science? Does pseudoscience fall under either of those categories or is it one onto itself?

ETA - Yes I read the OP, but it didn't seem to explain why it was termed “normal”.

"Normal science" is a term of art invented by Kuhn. It refers to the sort of science performed when there is a single dominant paradigm in the field and everyone is basically filling in the boxes of the crossword puzzle. For example, the current "standard model" in physics explains the properties of the subatomic particles that we've observed and predicts several that we haven't. A lot of people are looking for these particles to confirm that their properties are what we expect.

"Abnormal science" happens when a paradigm gets overthrown. When we have two equally acceptable theories that make wildly disparate predictions, for example.

Pseudoscience is neither. It's just fraud and incompetence.

 

[I less than three logic]

"Normal science" is a term of art invented by Kuhn. It refers to the sort of science performed when there is a single dominant paradigm in the field and everyone is basically filling in the boxes of the crossword puzzle. For example, the current "standard model" in physics explains the properties of the subatomic particles that we've observed and predicts several that we haven't. A lot of people are looking for these particles to confirm that their properties are what we expect.

"Abnormal science" happens when a paradigm gets overthrown. When we have two equally acceptable theories that make wildly disparate predictions, for example.

Pseudoscience is neither. It's just fraud and incompetence.

Thanks. Helps to clear up some confusion.

 

[Dancing David]

The OP focuses on 'normal science' as defined by Kuhn.

Yeah, what is the point. there is no reason to put science aside because of some ethical moral problem, science is a method. And one that would benefit politics and morals for most people.

You so silly, there is science and there is not science, there is no domain to which science should not be applied. There is no 'normal' science, there is merely science, sociology is an area of science that might even address the areas you feel should be off limit. Or possibly cultural anthropology.

Why would "social and political problems " be any different?

I think that science applies to all things why would there be an exclusion? (Most institutions already have a moral review board to helpfully prevent things like the Tuskegee experiment and expoitation of subjects.)

 

[Dancing David]

I recently had occasion to hang out in the waiting area of St Joseph Hospital in Asheville for a few hours. I was free to walk many of the corridors and rest in many of the waiting areas along with everyone else. It was early morning but it was obvious that the hospital functioned fully 24/7.

A person can walk the corridors of any big city hospital and observe the effectiveness of human rationality in action. One can also visit the UN building in NYC or read the morning papers and observe just how ineffective, frustrating and disappointing human rationality can be. Why does human reason perform so well in some matters and so poorly in others?

have you ever read a history of science book? I suggest you start with relativity and quantum theory. There was considerable debate and great frustration.

Politic and war are about the distribution of power, they can be studied using the methods of science.

And while you are at it, what is the means for funding science, it is not rational, and often very frustrating. it is very dominanted by politics.

So while you sit there and think that the world of science is some bizzare place divorced from the human condition, it is a ridiculous idea.

Humans are humans, they engage in petty squabbles and politics all the time, scientists are no exception to the rule. they are totaly capable of irrational behavior.

We live in two very different worlds; a world of technical and technological order and clarity, and a world of personal and social disorder and confusion.

False dichotomy, don't you ever attend a conference, there is a great deal of confusion and bickering. Some people get along with each other and some don't, there is no pure realm of magic happy science, there are hum,ans who practice science to some degree, and they engage in all the sorid tom foolery imaginable.

False dichotomy.

We are increasingly able to solve problems in one domain and increasingly endangered by our inability to solve problems in the other.

Assertion based upon false premises, show your work for credit. Where is the evidence to support your claim.
Just because someone finds it politicaly unprofitable to use reason and logic does not mean the domain is outside the realm of science.

Why are the budgets for the 'hard' sciences rising? It is because of politics.

Normal science is successful primarily because it is a domain of knowledge controlled by paradigms. The paradigm defines the standards, principles and methods of the discipline. It is not apparent to the laity but science moves forward in small incremental steps. Science seldom seeks and almost never produces major novelties.

More nonsense, one can also argue that science is driven by technology, relativity and quantum mechanics are the frist domains that weren't driven by technology alone, although technology sure helped.

So you are saying the the explosion in particle physics was a 'slow gradual process'.

While you are reading read up and the errors of progressive-ism, ala SJ Gould.
[/quote]

Science solves puzzles. The logic of the paradigm insulates the professional group from problems that are unsolvable by that paradigm. One reason that science progresses so rapidly
[/quote]
So now you condradict yourself.

and with such assurance

More stuff from some romance novels.

is because the logic of that paradigm allows the practitioners to work on problems that only their lack of ingenuity will keep them from solving.

Science uses instrumental rationality to solve puzzles. Instrumental rationality is a systematic process for reflecting upon the best action to take to reach an established end. The obvious question becomes ‘what mode of rationality is available for determining ends?’ Instrumental rationality appears to be of little use in determining such matters as “good” and “right”.

There is a striking difference between the logic of technical problems and that of dialectical problems.

No there isn't, you need to read up on some other science before you make that claim, start with sociology, anthrolopolgy, they are more likely to be science and not protoscience, then there are areas of psychology that are hard knock science, and those that are philospohy. Economics and political science I have opinions but no basis for them.

The principles, methods and standards for dealing with technical problems and problems of “real life” are as different as night and day. Real life problems cannot be solved using deductive and inductive reasoning.

more silly stuff, tools are tools, and science you can apply to any situation.

You ignore the dialectic of scientific endevour.

Dialectical reasoning requires the ability to slip quickly between contradictory lines of reasoning. One needs skill to develop a synthesis of one point of view with another. Where technical matters are generally confined to only one well understood frame of reference real life problems become multi-dimensional totalities.
When we think dialectically we are guided by principles not by procedures. Real life problems span multiple categories and academic disciplines. We need point-counter-point argumentation, we need emancipatory reasoning to resolve dialectical problems. We need critical thinking skills and attitudes to resolve real life problems.

How to build the atomic bomb is a technical problem. Whether to build the bomb or what to do with it after it is built is a real life problem.

The critically self-conscious learner is a person who has developed a passion for rational solutions to problematic ends. Instrumental rationality is designed to solve problems of means when the end is clear. Normal science, the science of means, is guided and controlled by paradigms. Paradigms are single dimensional structures that insure that means solutions do not stray from the straight and narrow.

Such systems are designed for puzzle solutions that are perfectly acceptable for single dimensional problems. The problematic situation that presents itself is just how to approach the determination of ends when such matters are mostly multi-dimensional without paradigms and generally demanding the agreement of two or more reflective agents. There are no paradigms for multi-dimensional problems.

Instrumental rationality is not a method suitable for developing ends. Dialectical rationality is the only mode of reasoning suitable for arriving at satisfactory ends.

In a criminal jury trial each juror ideally begins hearing the case as a mental blank slate. The witnesses engage in a controlled and guided dialogue wherein each witness communicates to the jury their particular truth regarding the matter under consideration. Each juror modifies his or her blank slate as the witness’s parade through; each providing his or her view of the truth. A dialogue takes place for the benefit of the juror who is not a member of the dialogue.

Each juror is required to reason dialectically. Dialectical reasoning is a process wherein the opinion of the juror is molded and remolded based upon the truths presented. The blank slate becomes slate A after witness A and then becomes slate A-B after witness B and then becomes slate A-B-C, etc.

At the end of the trial the jurors assemble in isolation to determine a verdict. Generally the members are polled to determine if all agree upon the truth of the case. If one or more jurors dissent from the others a new dialogue must take place. The jurors begin a dialogue in an attempt to reach a unanimous decision.

In this stage each juror is engaged in communication in dialogue while simultaneously each juror is engaged in a rational dialectic.

A jury trial might be a useful example of a problem engaged by many reflective agents with a multiplicity of frames of reference. In such a situation the jury must utilize communicative techniques to enter into a dialogue wherein there is a constant dialectic until a unanimous solution is reached or deadlock prevails.

Communicating by dialogue together with reasoning dialectically is a technique for attempting to solve multi-dimensional problems. Problems that are either not pattern like or that the pattern is too complex to ascertain.

Most problems that we face in our daily life are multi-dimensional in nature. Simple problems that occur daily in family life are examples. Each member of the family has a different point of view with differing needs and desires. Most of the problems we constantly face are not readily solved by mathematics because they are not pattern specific and are multi-dimensional.

Dialogue is a technique for mutual consideration of such problems wherein solutions grow in a dialectical manner. Through dialogue each individual brings his/her point of view to the fore by proposing solutions constructed around their specific view. All participants in the dialogue come at the solution from the logic of their views. The solution builds dialectically; from a thesis and a contrasting thesis, a synthesis is constructed that takes into consideration both proposals. From this synthesis, a new thesis has developed.

When we are dealing with single dimensional problems well circumscribed by paradigms the personal biases of the subject are of small concern. In multi-dimensional problems, without the advantage of paradigms, the biases of the problem solvers become a serious source of error. One important task of dialogue is to illuminate these prejudices. These biases may be quite subtle and often out of the consciousness of the participant holding them.

Science is a method and it still appplies to your comments here. If you would actualy study something other than that philosophy dressed up as psychology you would find that the methods of science are the methods of science.

You sound like such a lack knowledge, the observer bias or participant bias is well known, this is not like some earth shattering discovery.
[/quote]

Dialogic, the combination of dialogue and dialectic, is the only form of rationalization available for multilogical problems. Induction and deduction are aspects of the act of dialogic but are not sufficient alone for this needed communication form of rationalization.

Our schools have decided that our children should learn to be critical thinkers. I agree with their judgment. This disciplined form of thought is important to each child and is vitally important to our society. I have attempted to relay to you my sense of the importance of critical thinking in the hope that you may share that judgment and lend your support to the school system in this vital matter.[/QUOTE]

Then why did you say so little about critical thinking?

 

[chriswl]

We live in two very different worlds; a world of technical and technological order and clarity, and a world of personal and social disorder and confusion. We are increasingly able to solve problems in one domain and increasingly endangered by our inability to solve problems in the other.

This is only puzzling if you believe the following:

Science solves puzzles. The logic of the paradigm insulates the professional group from problems that are unsolvable by that paradigm. One reason that science progresses so rapidly and with such assurance is because the logic of that paradigm allows the practitioners to work on problems that only their lack of ingenuity will keep them from solving.

If science is the activity of solving problems within some fairly arbitrary "paradigm" then it is indeed puzzling why it is so succesful compared with other problem-solving activities. Why can't we just come up with an appropriate paradigm within which global warming or islamist terrorism are solvable?

The answer is very simple - science is not problem solving. Science is the search for the truth about the way the world is. Science is discovery. Kuhn and his disciples think that this is meaningless - there is no "way the world is", no "theory independent" way of viewing the world. What they mean is they can't explain the unreasonable success that scientists have in agreeing on a common view of the world and therefore conclude it must be some kind of put up job. I'm inclined to think that this is a problem for them, not a problem for the scientists. Scientists believe they discover facts about the world. I've no reason to argue with that.

 

[Ladewig]

School days are designed to prepare a student for the work place not to become an independent thinker.

Our schools have decided that our children should learn to be critical thinkers. I agree with their judgment.

What made you completely change your mind on this issue?

 

[coberst]

The following quotations I have taken from chapter IV “Normal Science as Puzzle Solving” of Kuhn’s book “The Structure of Scientific Revolutions”.

“Perhaps the most striking feature of the normal research problems we have just encountered is how little they aim to produce major novelties, conceptual or phenomenal.”

“the man who succeeds proves himself an expert puzzle-solver,”

“puzzles are,..that special category of problems that can test ingenuity or skill in solution”

“though intrinsic value is no criterion for puzzle, the assured existence of a solution is.”

“a paradigm can, or for that matter, even insulate the community from those socially important problems that are not reducible to the puzzle form,…”

“one of the reasons why normal science seems to progress so rapidly is that its practitioners concentrate on problems that only their own lack of ingenuity should keep them from solving.”

“to classify as a puzzle,..there must also be rules that limit both the nature of acceptable solutions and the steps by which they are to be obtained.”

All hypotheses are designed to be proven false. That is what a hypothesis is all about. Inductive reasoning works not because truth can be proven but that untruth can be proven.

Popper specifies that a criterion of a scientific statement is that it can be proven false.

The fact that the Michaelson-Morley experiment proved that the theory regarding the either was an error was what awakened Einstein and others, I guess, as to the inherent weakness in Newton’s laws of gravity.

The paradigm does determine what the answer to the experiment must be and if the scientist does not produce that, the paradigm demands that scientist must repeat it until s/he does, or unless s/he is prepared to question the paradigm that individual loses prestige in the group.

When work was done on the DNA analysis of the human genome if those tests showed a result that was significantly off what the theory of natural selection dictates those scientists would have to go back and run the tests until they did or be disgraced unless they could show somehow that the theory of natural selection, the paradigm under which they worked, was in error.

 

[Araneus]

These Kuhn theories are either beyond my ability to comprehend, or just meaningless nonsense. I genuinely can't figure out what he is trying to say.

 

[coberst]

These Kuhn theories are either beyond my ability to comprehend, or just meaningless nonsense. I genuinely can't figure out what he is trying to say.

Kuhn is speaking about complex ideas that cannot be comprehended without a significant intellectual input by the reader. These ideas are very important and can lead the reader into a much better comprehension of the sciences and thus of the world in which we live.

This book is written in a way that makes it possible for the layman to comprehend but it is not easy but well worth the effort. You can find this book at most any college library and probably many large city libraries.

 

[chriswl]

Kuhn is speaking about complex ideas that cannot be comprehended without a significant intellectual input by the reader. These ideas are very important and can lead the reader into a much better comprehension of the sciences and thus of the world in which we live.

Are you speaking from experience as someone who has put in the "significant intellectual input" and had their comprehension of science enhanced by it, or are you paraphrasing (or even quoting) someone else's opinion about the book?

 

[coberst]

Are you speaking from experience as someone who has put in the "significant intellectual input" and had their comprehension of science enhanced by it, or are you paraphrasing (or even quoting) someone else's opinion about the book?

I checked out this book from the libraryabout 18 months ago and after reading it decided to buy the book. I seldom buy a book until I have first read it. Since then I have studied it from first to last page because it is a very important concept that I think everyone would find it useful for understanding reality. I highly recommend it.