Thomas Coon's scientific paradigm concept. T. Kuhn's concept of paradigm shift. Paradigm - what is it in simple words

When considering the development process in general terms, philosophers formulated its key laws. One of them defines a progress strategy. It is called. According to it, the development takes place in a spiral. At each loop, there is a repetition of the processes, but for more high levels... The tactics of development are determined by another law. Hegel called it the transition from quantity to quality. In accordance with this law, development consists in a gradual increase in the number of changes that do not have clearly expressed new features. But after reaching a certain value, a qualitative leap occurs. Hegel called this limit a measure.

The development of social consciousness, in particular in the research and cultural sphere, occurs through the accumulation of certain quantitative changes. When they reach the measure, a qualitative leap occurs - scientific revolution... Paradigm shift is a key characteristic of the development process. Let's consider further how it happens and what events about it can testify.

Paradigm - what is it in simple words?

This term has Greek roots. The model of formulating a problem and its solution, which is a priority for a certain period, is a paradigm. What is it in simple words? Paradeigma is a certain fashion for the method of setting and solving research problems. A deviation from it with a high degree of probability will not find the proper understanding among scientists. In practice, there are various examples of it. The paradigm shift is most easily illustrated by comparing periods.

Specificity of occurrence

The paradigm shift is a rather lengthy process. It does not happen quickly and is accompanied by the gradual introduction of a new idea into the minds of an increasing number of scientists. After a while, having spread, the new model becomes the norm of perception. Many things in life are done by analogy. So, the solution of mathematical problems is carried out using known solutions. Facts that contradict the established model are usually perceived as heresy or ignored altogether. Nevertheless, as the history of science testifies, paradigm shift is a natural phenomenon.

Schedule

When new facts reach a certain amount, the established model is rapidly destroyed. On its basis, new system... It uses other concepts and methods through which an adequate interpretation of the accumulated information is carried out. Scientific paradigm shifts are often illustrated with graphs. The horizontal axis represents the time t, and the vertical axis represents certain abstract quantities n and p. The latter characterize the degree of development of the discipline and the level of technological progress for the specified period. The growth of the latter is indicated by a dotted line, and the change in the former is indicated by a solid line. The horizontal sections correspond to the established patterns. On steep stretches, a paradigm shift takes place. This phenomenon has received a corresponding name in modern literature. On steep sections, the qualitative leap that was mentioned above takes place. It is called

Development of natural science

The most famous ancient written sources include information from early China, Greece and Egypt. Their age is about three thousand years. Basically, they contain information from the field of medicine, mathematics, astronomy, understanding the foundations of life. in ancient times it was carried out by scattered scientists - sages. At that time, there was no clear model of perception, which was due to the almost complete absence of interaction between philosophers. This probably gave rise to the key ideas of the main theories used today.

For example, not many people know why the division of a circle is carried out exactly by 360 degrees. Meanwhile, such a model emerged in Ancient egypt... The year was considered to include 360 ​​days. During this time, the Sun makes a circle. Accordingly, one day was equal to the movement of the Luminary by 1/360 of an arc. Subsequently, this value was borrowed by the Arabs and received the name "degree". In the works of ancient Greek philosophers, one can consider a certain semblance of a paradigm. Ancient scholars were characterized by the idea of ​​the integrity of the universe. At the same time, natural science was not divided by them into separate disciplines and acted as natural philosophy.

Ancient thinkers

The most famous ancient scientists include Thales of Miletus, Ptolemy, Archimedes, Democritus and, of course, Aristotle. The first, apparently, was the first to inform the world about the phenomenon of electrification. Democritus is credited with the theory of the atomic structure of substances. Archimedes laid the foundations of hydrostatics and mechanics. Ptolemy developed a scheme for the structure of the universe, with which he substantiated his astrological constructions.

Meanwhile, Aristotle is considered a key figure in the development of the scientific paradigm. He was a Macedonian mentor. The great commander never forgot about his teacher. Aristotle received not only a variety of material values, but also documents that contained the wisdom of the civilizations captured by the Macedonian. Thanks to this support, the scientist was able to form a large scientific school. Aristotle formulated the foundations created the first systematic collection of all theories of his time. It was his school that became the community that formed the ancient paradigm in science. Subsequently, the views of the scientist were canonized by the Roman Catholic Church. His ideas remained a priority for a very long time. A paradigm shift in scientific knowledge during that period it was harshly suppressed. The Holy Inquisition played a special role in this. This is confirmed by the examples of Nicolaus Copernicus and Galileo Galilei.

Weightless theory

A paradigm shift is, first of all, the destruction of previously existing ideas. With the development of society, many of Aristotle's views ceased to be relevant and sufficient. Over time, the explanation of many natural phenomena was based on the idea of ​​weightless, subtle substances that acted as carriers of certain physical qualities. The explanation of optical effects began to be based on the theory of propagation of oscillations in weightless ethers. Heat began to be identified with an all-pervading liquid, which was called caloric.

Magnetic and also found their explanation. In particular, their existence was associated with the presence of two liquids with oppositely polar charges, and one magnetic. Subsequently, Franklin, the president of America, left only one of them. Its presence was indicated by a "+" sign, and a deficiency, respectively, by a "-". V modern world this model is reflected in the division of charges into negative and positive. The theory of the weightless has long ceased to exist, but the designations adopted in it have remained.

Peculiarities

Using a paradigm involves applying a historical approach to the discussion of a particular theory. Within the framework of social development, the existence of truth refers to subjective phenomena. The following is cited as the key reason for the paradigm shift. Changes in models are conditioned by the passage of time and, accordingly, by the development of the perception of society. American philosopher and scientist Thomas Kuhn explained how theories are replaced. The model adopted at a specific time outlines a certain range of questions and problems that have both meaning and a solution. All events and phenomena that do not fall into it do not deserve consideration. This suggests that at every stage of the development of society, there is a normal theory that operates within the framework of an established model.

"The structure of scientific revolutions"

This is the name of the most influential book, according to scientists of the twentieth century, which reveals the essence of changes in the consciousness of society. Thomas Kuhn, its author, looked at development as the destruction of old and the emergence of new psychological views on the problem. Due to them, in his opinion, new theories and hypotheses arise. The concept of paradigm shift, deduced by the author, did not provide answers to many questions. However, it showed in a new way the essence of pressing problems in their analysis. Kuhn's work is bold and innovative. This led to the popularity of the book and the emergence of many controversies around it.

According to the philosopher's definition, the scientific revolution is an epistemological change in the existing model. By it, the author means achievements recognized by all scientists and giving, over a certain period, a scheme for formulating problems and solutions to the community. A paradigm shift is, according to the philosopher, the process of detecting anomalies that cannot be explained using a universally accepted model. The current theory should be considered not just as a current scheme, but also as a whole worldview in which it is present along with the conclusions obtained from its use.

The conflict of paradigms that takes place in the process of qualitative leaps is, first of all, the inconsistency of different value systems, ways of solving, measuring, observing, practices, but not only pictures of the world. The model proposed by the author differs from the theory of neopositivists in that it focuses on the individuality of researchers, but not on abstraction of activity into an exclusively philosophical or logical one.

Practical explanations

An example of how a paradigm change forces us to consider the same information in different ways is the optical illusion "hare-duck". Sooner or later, the discipline will accumulate enough information about significant anomalies that conflict with the existing theory. At such a moment, a scientific crisis sets in. In the course of it, new ideas are tested, which until a certain time were not taken into account or were rejected. As a result, the crisis in science ends with a paradigm shift. The new model is gaining its supporters. From this moment on, a kind of intellectual battle of the adherents of the old paradigm that replaced it begins. The increase in the number of competing options, the desire and willingness to experience something new, the discussion of fundamental principles indicate the transition of the normal research process to the extraordinary.

As an example from physics of the 20th century, the replacement of Maxwell's electromagnetic worldview with Einstein's relativistic one can act. This transition was followed by a series of heated debates with empirical evidence. As a result of the controversy, Einstein's theory was recognized as more general.

Developments

In practice, there are several classic examples of paradigm shifts. Meanwhile, a number of scholars argue that the observation of a pure replacement of one model with another can be viewed exclusively from a rather abstract slice of any change. If you study the process in detail, then it is really quite difficult to determine the moment of the jump. The following events fall under Kuhn's definition:

1. Newton's unification of classical physics into a related mechanistic theory.
2. Development of the Darwinian theory of evolution. She dismissed creationism as a fundamental explanation for the diversity of life on Earth.
3. The development of quantum physics. The discipline predetermined the emergence of classical mechanics.
4. Adopting tectonic plate theory as an explanation for large-scale changes in planetary geology.

Classical theory

It was finally formed by the beginning of the 20th century. It is based on the idea that a consequence unambiguously and completely follows from the circumstances that give rise to it. This interpretation of the causal relationship provoked, in turn, the idea of ​​the complete predetermination of the upcoming events. The essence of the theory was expressed in the principle of scientific determinism, derived by Laplace. In accordance with it, all events can be predicted if a certain number of equations from classical physics are solved. Everything seemed clear and simple, and many phenomena were explained through this model.

However, the improvement of technology, electronic devices, in the first place, gave rise to a new scientific and technological revolution. A qualitative leap has occurred relatively recently. The literature published in the middle of the last century still contains signs of controversy, justifications for the correctness of the new. At the same time, the modern generation takes these innovations for granted.

Conclusion

As a result of which arose modern theory worldview, falls on the first decades of the 20th century. It was marked primarily by the formulation of quantum theory, which nullified the existence of classical determinism. This revolution also brought about a fundamental change in the understanding of the essence of chemical bonds. The new paradigm is distinguished by the interpretation of the principle of causality. The recognition of the ambiguity of the consequences arising from specific circumstances is a key characteristic of the current model. The reasons give rise to certain events with a certain degree of probability.

It is worth saying that many of the creators of the modern revolution in the field of science and technology, being adherents of the classical natural-scientific model of the perception of the world, have died, and have not been able to finally come to terms with the inability to explain the discoveries made by them with the help of previously used concepts.

The concept of sociological and psychological reconstruction and development of scientific knowledge is associated with the name and ideas of T. Kuhn, set forth in his well-known work on the history of science "The structure of scientific revolutions". This work examines the socio-cultural and psychological factors in the activities of both individual scientists and research teams.

Kuhn believes that the development of science is a process of alternating two periods - "normal science" and "scientific revolutions". Moreover, the latter are much more rare in the history of the development of science in comparison with the former. The socio-psychological nature of Kuhn's concept is determined by his understanding of the scientific community, whose members share a certain paradigm, adherence to which is determined by his position in the given social organization of science, the principles perceived during his training and development as a scientist, sympathies, aesthetic motives and tastes. It is these factors, according to Kuhn, that become the basis of the scientific community.

The central place in Kuhn's concept is occupied by the concept of a paradigm, or a set of the most general ideas and methodological attitudes in science, recognized by this scientific community. The paradigm has two properties: 1) it is accepted by the scientific community as a basis for further work; 2) it contains variable questions, i.e. opens up space for researchers. A paradigm is the beginning of any science; it provides the possibility of a purposeful selection of facts and their interpretation. The paradigm, according to Kuhn, or "disciplinary matrix" as he proposed to call it later, includes four types of the most important components: 1) "symbolic generalizations" - those expressions that are used by members of the scientific group without doubt and disagreement can be clothed in a logical form, 2) “metaphysical parts of paradigms” of the type: “heat is the kinetic energy of the parts that make up the body”, 3) values, for example, concerning predictions, quantitative predictions should be preferable to qualitative ones, 4) generally accepted patterns.

All these components of the paradigm are perceived by members of the scientific community in the process of their learning, the role of which in the formation of the scientific community is emphasized by Kuhn, and become the basis of their activities during periods of “normal science”. During the period of "normal science" scientists deal with the accumulation of facts, which Kuhn divides into three types: 1) a clan of facts that are especially indicative for revealing the essence of things. Research in this case consists in clarifying the facts and recognizing them in a wider range of situations, 2) facts that, although not of great interest in themselves, can be directly compared with the predictions of the paradigmatic theory, 3) empirical work that is undertaken to develop paradigm theory.

However, scientific activity as a whole is not limited to this. The development of "normal science" within the framework of the accepted paradigm lasts until the existing paradigm loses its ability to solve scientific problems. At one of the stages in the development of “normal science,” a discrepancy between the observations and predictions of the paradigm certainly arises, and anomalies arise. When such anomalies accumulate enough, the normal course of science stops and a state of crisis sets in, which is resolved by the scientific revolution, leading to the breaking of the old and the creation of a new scientific theory - the paradigm.

Kuhn believes that the choice of a theory for the role of a new paradigm is not a logical problem: “Neither logic nor probability theory can convince those who refuse to enter the circle. The logical premises and values ​​shared by the two camps in the paradigm debate are not broad enough for this. Both in political revolutions and in the choice of a paradigm, there is no higher instance than the consent of the respective community ”. For the role of the paradigm, the scientific community chooses the theory that seems to ensure the “normal” functioning of science. The change in the fundamental theories looks for a scientist as an entry into a new world, in which there are completely different objects, conceptual systems, other problems and tasks are revealed: “Paradigms cannot be corrected at all within the framework of normal science. Instead ... normal science ultimately only leads to anomalies and crises. And the latter are not resolved as a result of reflection and interpretation, but due to a somewhat unexpected and unstructured event, like a gestalt switch. After this event, scientists often speak of "the veil that fell from the eyes" or "insight" that illuminates a previously confusing puzzle, thereby adapting its components to see them in a new perspective, allowing for the first time to reach its solution. " Thus, the scientific revolution as a change of paradigms cannot be rationally explained, because the essence of the matter is in the professional well-being of the scientific community: either the community has the means to solve the puzzle, or it does not, then the community creates them.

The opinion that the new paradigm includes the old one as a special case, Kuhn considers erroneous. Kuhn puts forward the thesis of the incommensurability of paradigms. When the paradigm changes, the whole world of the scientist changes, since there is no objective language of scientific observation. The scientist's perception will always be influenced by a paradigm.

Apparently, the greatest merit of T. Kuhn is that he found a new approach to the disclosure of the nature of science and its progress. Unlike K. Popper, who believes that the development of science can be explained on the basis of only logical rules, Kuhn introduces a “human” factor into this problem, attracting new, social and psychological motives to its solution.

T. Kuhn's book gave rise to many discussions, both in Soviet and Western literature. One of them is analyzed in detail in the article, which will be used for further discussion. According to the authors of the article, both the concept of "normal science" put forward by Kuhn and his interpretation of scientific revolutions were sharply criticized.

There are three strands of criticism of Kuhn's understanding of "normal science". First, it is a complete denial of the existence of such a phenomenon as "normal science" in scientific activity. This point of view is adhered to by J. Watkins. He believes that science would not budge if the main form of activity of scientists was "normal science." In his opinion, such a boring and non-heroic activity as “normal science” does not exist at all, a revolution cannot grow out of Kuhn’s “normal science”.

The second line of criticism of "normal science" is presented by Karl Popper. He, unlike Watkins, does not deny the existence of a period of "normal research" in science, but believes that there is no such significant difference between "normal science" and the scientific revolution, which Kuhn points out. In his opinion, Kuhn's "normal science" is not only not normal, but also poses a danger to the very existence of science. The “normal” scientist in Kuhn's view evokes a feeling of pity in Popper: he was poorly trained, he was not used to critical thinking, he was made a dogmatist, he is a victim of doctrinaire. Popper believes that although a scientist usually works within the framework of a theory, if he wishes, he can go beyond this framework. True, in this case it will be in other frames, but they will be better and wider.

Kuhn's third line of criticism of normal science assumes that normal research exists, that it is not fundamental to science as a whole, it also does not represent the evil that Popper believes. In general, one should not attribute too much importance to normal science, neither positive nor negative. Stephen Toulmin, for example, believes that scientific revolutions do not happen so rarely in science, and science does not develop at all through the accumulation of knowledge. Scientific revolutions are not at all “dramatic” interruptions in the “normal” continuous functioning of science. Instead, it becomes a “unit of measurement” within the very process of scientific development. For Tulmin, revolution is less revolutionary and “normal science” less cumulative than for Kuhn.

No less objection was raised by Kuhn's understanding of scientific revolutions. Criticism in this direction comes down primarily to accusations of irrationalism. Kuhn's most active opponent in this direction is Karl Popper's follower I. Lakatos. He argues, for example, that Kuhn "excludes any possibility of rational reconstruction of knowledge", that from Kuhn's point of view there is a psychology of discovery, but not logic, that Kuhn painted "a highly original picture of the irrational substitution of one rational authority for another."

As can be seen from the above discussion, Kuhn's critics focused on his understanding of "normal science" and the problem of a rational, logical explanation of the transition from old ideas to new ones.

As a result of the discussion of Kuhn's concept, most of his opponents formed their models of scientific development and their understanding of scientific revolutions. The concepts of I. Lakatos and Art. Tulmina will be discussed in the following sections of this work.

/ Kornilova T.V., Smirnov S.D. Methodological foundations psychology. S._Pb., Peter, 2006, p. 46-50 /.

The American historian of science T. Kuhn (1922-1996) introduced a number of fundamental concepts to describe the laws of the functioning and development of science.

Scientific paradigm- a set of fundamental achievements in this field of science, setting generally accepted models, examples of scientific knowledge, problems and methods of their research and recognized for a certain time by the scientific community as the basis for its further activities.

Such patterns must be unprecedented enough to attract adherents from competing fronts, while at the same time open enough for new generations of scientists to find unresolved problems of any kind. These are the models from which the traditions of scientific research grow.

Scientists, whose activities are based on the same paradigms, rely on the same rules of scientific practice. In a sense, the generally accepted paradigm is the main unit of measurement for everyone who studies the process of the development of science. This unit as a whole cannot be reduced to its logical components. The formation of paradigms is a sign of the maturity of a scientific discipline, that is, an indicator of the emergence of a discipline at the stage of "normal science". A theory accepted as a paradigm should seem preferable to competing theories, but it does not have to explain all the facts and answer all the questions.

The activity of scientists in the pre-paradigmatic period of the development of science is less systematic and subject to many accidents. When a synthetic theory is first created (an embryo, a prototype of a paradigm), capable of winning over the majority of scientists of the next generation, the old schools gradually disappear, which is partly due to the conversion of their members to a new paradigm. Initial stages the adoption of the paradigm is usually associated with the creation of special journals, the organization of scientific societies, the requirements for the allocation of special courses in universities. Paradigms are strengthened as their use leads to faster success than competing approaches to solving acute research problems.

Normal Science- the stage of development of scientific knowledge, at which the accumulation and systematization of knowledge within the framework of the existing paradigm and the development of a paradigm theory are mainly carried out in order to resolve some remaining ambiguities and improve the solution of problems that were previously only superficially touched upon.

T. Kuhn likens the solution of such problems to solving puzzles, where it is also necessary to act within the framework of strict rules-prescriptions. Therefore, the problems of normal (mature) science are to a very small extent focused on the discovery of new facts or the creation of a new theory. Actions within the framework of strict rules-prescriptions cannot lead to the creation of new paradigms, which is equivalent to a revolution in science, i.e., a radical change in the system of rules-prescriptions of scientific activity.

Discoveries begin with the awareness of anomalies, that is, with the establishment of the fact that nature has somehow violated the expectations inspired by the paradigm. This leads to an expansion of research in the field of anomaly. A paradox arises - how normal science, not striving directly for new discoveries and intending at the beginning even to suppress them, can serve as an instrument generating these discoveries. The answer is that an anomaly can only manifest itself against the backdrop of a paradigm. The more accurate and developed a paradigm is, the more sensitive an indicator for detecting an anomaly it is. To some extent, even resistance to change is beneficial; it ensures that the paradigm is not dropped too easily, that only anomalies that permeate scientific knowledge to the core will lead to the paradigm shift.

But discoveries are not the only source of destructive-constructive paradigm changes. The second source of its bankruptcy is the constant growth of difficulties in solving its puzzles by normal science to the extent that it should do it. As in production, in science, the change of tools (tools of labor) is an extreme measure that is used only when serious systemic crises arise.

Extraordinary science- science is at the stage of an acute crisis, when the anomaly of its development becomes too obvious and is recognized by the majority of researchers in this field.

Any crisis begins with a paradigm doubt and a gradual loosening of the rules of normal inquiry. The situation begins to resemble a pre-paradigmatic period in the development of science.

The crisis ends in one of three outcomes:

1) normal science can prove its ability to solve the problem that gave rise to the crisis;

2) the majority of scientists admit that the problem in the near future cannot find its solution at all and it is, as it were, left as a legacy to the future generation;

3) a new contender for the role of a paradigm appears, and a struggle for the "throne" unfolds.

But often a new paradigm arises (at least in the bud) before the crisis has gone too far or was clearly recognized. In other cases, a significant time elapses between the first awareness of the collapse of the old paradigm and the emergence of a new one. During this period, there is an increase in requests for help from philosophy, a violent expression of dissatisfaction with the state of affairs, reflection of the fundamental provisions of science - all these are symptoms of the transition from normal science to extraordinary.

Scientific revolution- these are non-cumulative episodes in the development of science, when, as a result of a crisis, the old paradigm is replaced in whole or in part by a new one.

In changes of this kind T. Kuhn sees much in common with the social revolution. It is precisely in the doctrine of the nature and inevitability of scientific revolutions that the author most deeply disagrees with the positivists, who asserted the continuously accumulative nature of the development of knowledge and the ahistorical, inviolability of the basic rules-prescriptions and standards of scientific research. Scientific revolutions lead not only to radical changes in the views of the world (restructuring of the picture of the world), but also to changes in the very world in which a person lives.

Even after a new paradigm is established on the throne, resistance does not stop for a long time. Some scientists accept the new paradigm for a variety of reasons, including those lying outside the sphere of science (for example, the cult of the sun helped I. Kepler to become a Copernican). Aesthetic factors also play an important role. Even nationality and past reputation as an innovator can play a significant role in this process. Conversion to the new faith will continue until not a single defender of the old paradigm remains alive.

From the point of view of T. Kuhn, the progress of science is not strictly progressive. It is most obvious during the periods of its normal (cumulative) development. As paradigms shift, the number of newly discovered problems usually exceeds the number of resolved ones. But it is precisely the discovery of a new field of problems that ensures further movement forward at the next stage in the existence of normal science, already within the framework of a new paradigm. T. Kuhn also draws attention to the fact that novelty for the sake of novelty is not the goal of science, as is often the case in other areas of creativity. And while new paradigms rarely or never have all the capabilities of their predecessors, they tend to retain vast quantities of the most concrete elements of past achievements, while opening up the possibility of new concrete solutions to old problems.

But can we consider that with each scientific revolution we are getting closer and closer to some complete, objective, true understanding of nature? T. Kuhn is rather skeptical about an affirmative answer to this question, simply because such absolute knowledge, in principle, cannot exist. But we can talk about an increasing consistency of research tools and procedures with what we are studying.

In conclusion, attention should be paid to the special meaning of the concept of "scientific community" in the approach of T. Kuhn. "The paradigm is what unites the scientific community, and vice versa, the scientific community is made up of people who recognize the paradigm." Outside a specific scientific community, the concept of a paradigm loses its meaning. Thus, paradigms do not live on their own; and when they talk about rethinking new facts within a particular paradigm or changing paradigms, they mean real life scientific community. Therefore, the sociology of science is an integral aspect of the logic of the development of science.

K. Popper's interest in the development of knowledge paved the way for the analytical philosophy of science to turn to the history of scientific ideas and concepts. However, the constructions of Popper himself were still speculative in nature, and their source remained logic and some theories of mathematical natural science. T. Kuhn was preparing himself to work in the field of graduate school, but suddenly he was surprised to find that ideas about science and its development in the 40s in Europe and the United States were at odds with real historical material.

Kuhn Thomas Samuel (1922-1996) - Amer. historian and philosopher, one of the leaders of the historical and evolutionary direction in the philosophy of science. He developed the concept of the historical dynamics of scientific knowledge, the core of which was the image of science as a specific activity of scientific communities. Thomas Kuhn rejected the cumulative (cumulative) theory of the development of science. He also put forward the thesis of the incommensurability of scientific traditions. Kuhn introduced the concept paradigms(ancient Greek - sample) as a standard of behavior. Paradigm is a model of intellectual behavior adopted in this scientific community. Or a paradigm (according to Kuhn) is a certain model that sets the style of thinking and research of a scientist. It is perceived in the learning process and performs two functions:

a) prohibitive (everything that does not agree with this theory is left);

b) directing or projective - stimulates research in a certain direction.

It includes four elements in the paradigm: 1) basic laws; 2) conceptual models or general ideas about what science is researching; 3) value attitudes; 4) Sample solutions to standard problems.

Kuhn draws a diagram of the development of science:

a) normal science - during this period, scientists work with standard methods and knowledge is accumulated within the framework of the paradigm;

b) crisis - associated with the accumulation of anomalies;

c) scientific revolution - the old paradigm is being broken, a new one is being promoted and welcomed by the scientific community.

Distinguish: disciplinary, complex, global - scientific revolution.

Thus, the new term and the scientific revolution are paradigm shifts that change the way scientific theories are compared and measured. The new paradigm is not being rationally chosen. Her victory depends on chances and characteristics of cultural and socio-psychological circumstances. In addition, he puts forward the thesis of the incommensurability of paradigms, i.e. each paradigm has its own language, its own ideas about reality, therefore, it is incomparable with others. When a new paradigm is put forward, all old knowledge is discarded and the development of science begins, as it were, from an empty place.

Thomas Kuhn expressed these ideas in the famous book "The Structure of Scientific Revolutions", which was published in 1962. One quote from this book. “Hardly any effective research can begin before the scientific community decides it has valid answers to questions like: What are the fundamental units that make up the universe? How do they interact with each other and with the senses? What questions does a scientist have the right to pose in relation to such entities, and what methods can be used to solve them? " Obviously, answers to such questions are given by metaphysics, which, according to Kuhn, precedes scientific work.

K. Popper's appeal to the problems of the development of knowledge paved the way for the philosophy of science to turn to the history of scientific ideas and concepts. However, the constructions of Popier himself were still speculative in nature and their source remained logic and some theories of mathematical natural science. The first methodological concept that became widely known and was based on the study of the history of science was the concept of the American historian and philosopher of science Thomas Kuhn. He prepared himself for work in the field of theoretical physics, but while still in graduate school, he was surprised to find that the ideas about science and its development that prevailed at the end of the 40s in Europe and the United States were significantly at odds with real historical material. This discovery drew him to a deeper study of history. Considering how the establishment of new facts, the advancement and recognition of new scientific theories actually took place, Kuhn gradually came to his own original idea of ​​science. He expressed this idea in the famous book "The Structure of Scientific Revolutions", which was published in 1962.

Thomas Samuel Kuhn was born in the United States of America in 1922. Graduated from Harvard University with a Ph.D. in physics. He worked at Harvard all his life and taught at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology. V last years worked on problems of the history of quantum mechanics, died in 1996. The main works are the following: "The structure of scientific revolutions" (1962); "Substantial stress. Selected studies of scientific tradition and change" (1977).

The most important concept of Kuhn's concept is the concept of a paradigm. The content of this concept has remained not entirely clear, however, as a first approximation, we can say that a paradigm is a set of scientific achievements recognized by the entire scientific community at a certain period of time.

Generally speaking, a paradigm can be called one or more fundamental theories that have received universal acceptance and have guided scientific research for some time. Examples of such paradigmatic theories are Aristotle's physicist, Ptolemy's geocentric system of the world, Newton's mechanics and optics, Lavoisier's oxygen theory of combustion, Maxwell's electrodynamics, Einstein's theory of relativity, Bohr's theory of the atom, etc. Thus, the paradigm embodies the indisputable, generally recognized knowledge about the investigated area of ​​natural phenomena.

However, speaking about the paradigm, Kuhn means not only some knowledge expressed in its laws and principles. Scientists - the creators of the paradigm - not only formulated some theory or law, but they also solved one or more important scientific problems and thereby provided examples of how to solve problems. The original experiments of the creators of the paradigm in a cleared of accidents and improved form are then included in the textbooks, according to which future scientists master their science. Mastering in the process of teaching these classical models of solving scientific problems, the future scientist comprehends the foundations of his science deeper, learns to apply them in specific situations and masters the special technique of studying those phenomena that form the subject of this scientific discipline. A paradigm provides a set of models for scientific research - this is its most important function.

But that's not all. By setting a certain vision of the world, the paradigm outlines a circle of problems that have meaning and a solution: everything that does not fall into this circle does not deserve consideration from the point of view of the supporters of the paradigm. At the same time, the paradigm establishes acceptable methods for solving these problems. Thus, it determines what facts can be obtained in empirical research, - not specific results, but the type of facts.

The concept of the scientific community is closely related to the concept of paradigms; in a sense, these concepts are synonymous. Indeed, what is a paradigm? - This is some view of the world accepted by the scientific community. What is the scientific community? - This is a group of people united by faith in one paradigm. One can become a member of the scientific community only by accepting and mastering its paradigm. If you do not share the belief in the paradigm, you remain outside the scientific community. Therefore, for example, modern psychics, astrologers, researchers of flying saucers and poltergeists are not considered scientists, they are not included in the scientific community, because they all either reject some fundamental principles of modern science, or put forward ideas that are not recognized by modern science.

Kuhn calls a science developing within the framework of the modern paradigm "normal", believing that it is precisely this state that is common and most typical for science. Unlike Popper, who believed that scientists are constantly thinking about how to refute existing and recognized theories, and for this purpose they strive to set up refuting experiments, Kuhn is convinced that in real scientific practice, scientists almost never doubt the truth of the foundations of their theories and do not even raise the question of their verification. "Scientists in the mainstream of normal science do not set themselves the goal of creating new theories, and usually, moreover, they are intolerant of the creation of such theories by others. On the contrary, research in normal science is aimed at developing those phenomena and theories, the existence of which the paradigm presupposes."

To emphasize the special nature of the problems that scientists develop during the normal period of the development of science, Kuhn calls them "puzzles", comparing their solution to solving crosswords or composing pictures from colored cubes. A crossword puzzle or puzzle is different in that there is a guaranteed solution for them, and this solution can be obtained in some prescribed way. When you try to put together a picture of cubes, you know that such a picture exists. At the same time, you do not have the right to invent your own picture or add the cubes the way you like, even though this will turn out more interesting - from your point of view - images. You have to put the cubes in a certain way and get the prescribed image. The problems of normal science are exactly the same. The paradigm ensures that a solution exists, and it also defines the acceptable methods and means of obtaining this solution.

As long as puzzle solving is successful, the paradigm acts as a reliable tool of knowledge. The number of established facts is increasing, the accuracy of measurements is increasing, new laws are being discovered, the deductive coherence of the paradigm is growing, in short, knowledge is accumulating. But it may well turn out - and often turns out - that some puzzle problems, despite all the efforts of scientists, do not lend themselves to solution, for example, the predictions of a theory are constantly at odds with experimental data. At first they don't pay attention to it. It is only in Popper's view that one has only to record the discrepancy between theory and fact, he immediately questions the theory. In reality, scientists always hope that over time the contradiction will be eliminated and the puzzle will be solved. But one day it may be realized that the problem cannot be solved by means of the existing paradigm. The point is not in the individual abilities of this or that scientist, not in increasing the accuracy of measuring instruments, but in the fundamental inability of the paradigm to solve the problem. Kuhn calls this problem an anomaly.

As long as there are few anomalies, scientists aren't too worried about them. However, the development of the paradigm itself leads to an increase in the number of anomalies. Improvement of instruments, an increase in the accuracy of observations and measurements, the rigor of conceptual means - all this leads to the fact that the discrepancies between the predictions of the paradigm and the facts that previously could not be noticed and realized are now fixed and recognized as problems requiring solution. Attempts to cope with these new problems by introducing new theoretical assumptions into the paradigm violate its deductive harmony, make it vague and loose.

Confidence in the paradigm is falling. Her inability to cope with an increasing number of problems indicates that she can no longer serve as a tool for successfully solving puzzles. A condition ensues that Kuhn calls a crisis. Scientists are faced with many unresolved ^ problems, unexplained facts and experimental data. For many of them, the recently dominant paradigm no longer inspires confidence and they begin to look for new theoretical means, which, perhaps, will be more successful. That which united scientists - the paradigm - is leaving. The scientific community splits into several groups, some of which continue to believe in the paradigm, while others put forward hypotheses that claim to be a new paradigm. Normal exploration freezes. Science essentially ceases to function. Only during this period of crisis, Kuhn believes, scientists set up experiments aimed at testing and screening out competing hypotheses and theories.

The period of crisis ends when one of the proposed hypotheses proves its ability to cope with existing problems, explain incomprehensible facts and, thanks to this, attracts the majority of scientists to its side, the scientific community restores its unity. It is this paradigm shift that Kuhn calls the scientific revolution.

Scientists who have adopted a new paradigm are beginning to see the world in a new way. Kuhn compares the transition from one paradigm to another with a gestalt switching: for example, if a vase was seen in a drawing earlier, it takes effort to see two human profiles in the same drawing. But as soon as this switch of images has taken place, the adherents of the new paradigm are no longer able to make the reverse switch and cease to understand those of their colleagues who are still talking about the vase. Supporters of different paradigms speak different languages ​​and live in different worlds, they lose the ability to communicate with each other. What makes a scientist leave the old, inhabited world and rush along a new, unfamiliar and complete unknown road? -

The hope that it will turn out to be more convenient than the old, worn-out track, as well as religious, philosophical, aesthetic and similar considerations, but not logical and methodological arguments. "Competition between paradigms is not a kind of struggle that can be resolved by argument."

So, the development of science in Kuhn looks like this: normal science, developing within the framework of a generally recognized paradigm; consequently, an increase in the number of anomalies, ultimately leading to a crisis; hence the scientific revolution, which means a paradigm shift. Accumulation of knowledge, improvement of methods and tools, expansion of the scope of practical applications, i.e. all that can be called progress occurs only during the period of normal science. However, the scientific revolution leads to the rejection of everything that was obtained at the previous stage, the work of science begins, as it were, anew, from scratch. Thus, on the whole, the development of science turns out to be discrete: periods of progress and accumulation of knowledge are separated by revolutionary failures, breaks in the fabric of science.

Admittedly, this is a very daring and thought-provoking concept. Of course, it is very difficult to give up the idea that science is progressing in its historical development that the knowledge of scientists and mankind in general about the world around them is growing and deepening. But after Kuhn's work, one can no longer ignore the problems with which the idea of ​​scientific progress is associated.

It can no longer be innocently assumed that one generation of scientists passes on its achievements to the next generation, which multiplies these achievements. Now we are obliged to answer such questions: how is the continuity between the old and new paradigms? What and in what forms does the old paradigm convey the new? How is communication between supporters of different paradigms carried out? How is paradigm comparison possible? Kuhn's concept stimulated interest in these problems and contributed to the development of a deeper understanding of the development of science.

To a large extent, under the influence of the works of Popper and Kuhn, philosophers of science began to turn more often to the history of scientific ideas, trying to find in it a solid ground for their methodological constructions. It seemed that history could serve as a more solid foundation for methodological concepts than epistemology, psychology, and logic. However, it turned out to be the other way around: the flow of history eroded methodological schemes, rules, standards; relativized all the principles of philosophy of science and ultimately undermined the hope that it is able to adequately describe the structure and development of scientific knowledge.