Chapter 2.1: Thomas Kuhn, normal science
Вставка
- Опубліковано 26 вер 2017
- This video is part of the series: 'The Philosophy of the Humanities' which you can find here • Philosophy of the Huma...
For more videos on Philosophy by Victor Gijsbers go to:
/ @victorgijsbers
Intromusic: "Styley" by Gorowski (www.wmrecordings.com/tag/gorow...)
You explain things so clearly.
a true gentleman and a scholar, thank you for shifting my paradigm (your hair is beautiful, and embraces me in its methodological inquiry)
Thank you very much, seriously. Having philosophy classes in english can be very challenging sometimes for those whose mother tounge isn't english. They make us read Thomas Kuhn's own writings, and without these videos I wouldn't understed the whole thing and process.
Based Travis Bickle
You explain it so well. Made me actually get through my presentation readings with such ease. Thank you 🙂
i'm a sri lankan.but i'm very interesting your lectures.it's very helpfull.
You sir, are a lifesaver! Thank you for explaining things simply. You rock!
this guy is a gem. The way he explains is so top notch
Love these videos! I have an exam of methaphysics and this really helped me! It is explained so that everybody can understand it. Thank you! :-)
These videos are great. Im studying sociology and its great to have a video of someone explaining it to help me understand what I'm reading.
Love this, literally have an essay on outlining Kuhn’s ideas so this helped a lot! Thank you!
These videos provide general el]nlightment about International Relations theories. Thomas Khun, Lakatos and Popper are necessary people to help us understand how the science improves. Thanks for all lectures again!
Thanks for this was having a hard time with understanding the readings to be able to complete my discussion but thanks to your video I am understanding it a lot more. Going to watch your next video on this matter
love all you videos , the style and technique of presentation. was hoping you could do something on the ontology of jean-paul satre
Great explanation! Ideas were well laid out and everything was easy to understand, can't believe I'm late to this!
Thank you for this very, very clear presentation, sir!
Beautifull video exellent understanding of the topic you are so skilled in your field
Love this series.
This makes so much sense now! Thank you!!!
Thank you! Your presentation is so helpful
Wow! I didn't even wanted to seriously follow this subject, but it was explained so good that I am watching them all.
great material for anyone who works or plays with knowledge
3:00
Best start point.
Kepler CAMERA theory of the eye.
Paradigm science,
Which is not allowed to be challenged.
EVER.
You explained it so well that I would like to hire you as my teacher! Man, you were meant to teach! Why isn't everyone like you?
Because every one can't be teachers, otherwise you would be able to do the same!
He is my teacher haha
GO XIAN KAYA MO YAN NAWA ANG VIDEO NA ITO AY MAKATULONG PARA SA IYONG KINABUKASAN
-Love from the Philippines 🇵🇭
I really like your videos. Thank you.
This series is amazing! It should get way more views
thank you buddy! helped me a lot with my philosophy exam
It depends on whether you are a medical doctor, or an Electrical Engineer, designing all eyes as control system.
This is so helpful…, how I wish you made a video on Imre Lakatos and his MSRP
Amazing! And so interesting! Thank you
this really helped me with uni, thank youuuu
I like the style Victor!
Lovely. Thank you!
Thank you Sir, I understand it Clearly ☺️
well explained, thank you
great work! thanks
You are awesome.
Thank you!
Very clear thank you!
Most paradigms of our sciences are fundamentally incorrect, but we still piece together working models from our observations. Dephlogistication or oxidation... same physical result but different paradigms.
I needed this. thanks! I wouldnt be here if I dindnt already knew this before.
🎯 Key Takeaways for quick navigation:
01:32 🔄 *Thomas Kuhn challenges the notion that science is always critical; he argues that science is mostly non-critical during normal science phases.*
03:37 🔄 *Kuhn identifies four phases in the development of scientific disciplines: pre-paradigmatic, normal science, crisis, and scientific revolution.*
05:50 🔄 *Kuhn introduces the concept of "paradigm" as the set of theories, concepts, methods, etc., that scientists in a discipline take for granted during normal science.*
07:38 🔄 *During normal science, scientists do not critically question the paradigm, and this lack of constant criticism is seen as essential for detailed scientific work and progress.*
09:00 🔄 *Kuhn suggests that the belief in science as a critical enterprise comes from not recognizing the phases other than normal science, where critical examination is more prevalent.*
Made with HARPA AI
Who are you? You speak so well! I could not find your name on the Home page.
Explained clearly
Necesito uno en español
very good
Periods of normal science are driven by dogmatic adherence to the prevailing paradigm.
Does this entail that there can be no scientific progress?
It became good for me. thanx
thank you :)
I READ THE STRUCTURE OF SCIENTIFIC REVOLUTIONS BY THOMAS S. KUHN WHEN I WAS STILL WORKING FOR CEBU PACIFIC AIR ZAMBOANGA CITY. THIS BOOK COST 3,910PHP
Thank you
you made it so simple,
I love your video
Thanks
Erg hulpzaam. Dank u!
i'm sorry i'm a student of philosophy and i would like to clear something. On my philosophy book it is said at kuhn's phase of science that it starts with the normal science then anomaly (when there are problems that scientists can't resolve with the current paradigm) then the crisis, then the extraordinary science (there is a discussion to seek if the current paradigm stays or it's time to creat a new one) and then the scientific revolution. Can you help me on this, please? I don't know is it's the book that is wrong or if it is you or you both areright i'm a little confused. Pls answer me the faster you can because i'm going to have an exam about this.
Hello, fellow philosophy student... the anomalies are part of the crisis, but should the paradigm be able to solve the anomaly then the crisis is averted if you will... the crisis only occurs if the anomalies are left unanswered for too long such that our faith in the paradigms ability to explain the anomaly starts to fade. If we do not believe the paradigm can answer the anomalies then we have a real crisis. Anomalies might be mentioned as after normal science because Kuhn maintains that there are anomalies in every scientific theory; which popper might call a falsification. This means Kuhn does obviously disagree strongly with Popper. Kuhn maintains normal science always has anomalies.
Frederik Toubro thanks it is clear now I'll do my best to get an A grade
What's his name?
Is there a reason why the UFO phenomenon isnt considered Kuhns "crisis inducing anomalous data" ?
hey can i ask a question? what did he mean in 6:16 when he had said, "as the historian is confident about everything then i have been just enumerated."
Does anyone know an example of a 'normal science' in 'social sciences'?
Well, I think the argument would be that most of the things social scientists do and think would be examples of normal science. Normal science is the "norm" of science. We take almost everything for granted.
NO! Kuhn EXPLICITLY meant only a few sciences (chemistry, physics)
confirm his work. He repeatedly excluded social sciences from having
paradigms.
what about „survival in science“ bias?
If a paradigm is faulty, should it be abandoned even if there is no substitute for it?
the harsh reality is that we emotionally invest in paradigms. people will defend their views to the death. Max Plank may have been on to something when he said science progresses one funeral at a time. science makes toys, largely.
This made me an outcast in medicine where I felt thrown into a cult, ( and I was well versed in The Structure of Scientific Revolutions)
Provide an instance
@@troytombstone2664
Residence:
We can do a study between the correlation of high IL -6 TNF , CRP , concentrations in RA patients and Coronary artery disease , within the RHeumatoid arthritis clinic as there are correlations of disease activity and Coronary disease( year 2006 I had access to those clinics in residency) ,
Answer: Is a FACT that RA patients smoke more and exercise less than the general population, no need to go for more..... ( thank you Mad-Men attending)
Everytime I see that word is a fact ! I go dissonant!
for none speaking english people How would you define to be critical? can somebody pls explain it
Teachers must be critical of their students work. They look for mistakes, undeveloped ideas, or incomplete thoughts. To be critical is to try and poke holes in, or look for errors in work. Scientists are critical of surveys that have a low sample size, or they can be critical about 'flat-earth theory.' Essentially, being critical is like taking a superstar basketball player and correcting their jump-shot, so they are more likely to make the shot next time. Picture it as exercising arguments until they are in olympic-like shape.
This is so gangster... OG Academics
I'm claiming either giants or some supernatural being built pyramids.
It's the only option that actually makes sense (And maybe I'm coming up with this idea because scripture talks about giants) but you tell that to historians with biases they'd sooner have a heart attack than be open to critiquing their own theories.
I mean they already know humans couldn't have built the pyramid with the knowledge of the tools the egyptians had available for that time.
Tu me sauve
My guy Jesus saves the day once again
lmao
Glashelder
I am only here for the shirts
Popper's criticisms is not about criticise everything everytime, he explains it clearly in "the logic of scientific discovery"
But: even when a paradigm is well established, science is still way more critical than any other set of disciplines.
This is why I have such a problem with the concept of anthropogenic climate change. Not because I have a problem with the idea that man's industrial activities over the last ~200 years is having a general warming effect on the planet, because I really don't have a problem with that. It is the fact that proponents for ACC are so very determined to deny any bit of uncertainty to promote their agenda of an impending apocalypse - to which, they will gladly excommunicate anyone who might occasionally object to some of their more outrageous claims, branding them with the scarlet letter D for "denier".
praat nederlands met me
even nederlands met me
1:01 to 1:15 what most science illiterate people just dont understand
Meh spilling water.
He shows NO evidence...like charts.
So dislike
It seems brash oversimplification for Kuhn to conclude that scientists are uncritical. There is a complete lack of nuance-either/or-in such a statement. Scientists surely are necessarily less critical of established paradigms and more critical of drawing conclusions from new observations, if only for pragmatic reasons. The existing paradigms themselves, for the most part, are established within a highly critical scientific framework, a methodology that evolved over time through rigorous argument and agreement between fellow scientists. I came here to get some handle on epistemology (as a working scientist) from a humanities perspective. But with such sloppy thinking demonstrated in the first video watched, I’m frankly aghast and feel no impetus to continue.
You're not a very good listener, kipling. Speaker cites Kuhn at 1:45 'most of the time, science isn't very critical at all'. That's not the same as you paraphrase Kuhn: that they are uncritical. The one that is oversymplifying is you.
Bas Lems While your addendum is valid (my response was a concise reflection) I remain in disagreement with the overall thrust and conclusions of his arguments.
@@kipling1957 It's fine to disagree, you should be critical ;-)
Bas Lems Totally agree, and I am, ever.
2.5K collegegeld per jaar en alsnog reclame op de video
"a historian"... "she will..." "her eyes..." etc.
the leftist ideology that reflects in his words makes me want to puke, especially because he thinks he is more woke and moral than people who aren't egalitarianists.
set aside his leftist and egalitarian bullshit, he is good at explaining the things he is explaining.
very good