A CRITICAL EVALUATION OF THOMAS KUHN.

  • : Ms Word, Ms Word Format
  • : 81 Pages
  • : ₦3000
  • : 1-5 Chapters
  •  
  • Click to DOWNLOAD Materials

A CRITICAL EVALUATION OF THOMAS KUHN.

CHAPTEER 1 INTRODUCTION

  • BACKGROUND OF THE STUDY

Thomas S. Kuhn’s (1962/1970) The Structure of Scientific Revolutions (SSR) is a landmark study devoted to the history of science.1 Kuhn, as a self-described “practicing historian of science” (1977: 3) emphasizes the critical role of paradigms, which are taken to be “universally recognized scientific achievements that for a time provide model problems and solutions to a community of practitioners” (1970: viii). A paradigm consists of the fundamental ideas, methods, language, and theories that are accepted by the members of a scientific community. A paradigm is critical to the potential progress of science as “no natural history can be interpreted in the absence of at least some implicit body of intertwined theoretical and methodological belief that permits selection, evaluation, and criticism” (Kuhn, 1970: 16–17) SSR emphasized the importance of the evolution of science (Bird 2000, Wray 2011). Thus, SSR brought back historical insights that had been dropped with the eminence of logical positivism and its focus on empirical evidence (Ayer 1959, Carnap 1937). SSR was not an historical account of science, but instead pointed out how the textbook accounts of science highlighting received theory differ substantially from the rich descriptions of the process of advancing this theory. SSR showed that science primarily advances through shifts in theory and not by the accumulation of knowledge, which was commonly held prior to publication of SSR (Oppenheim and Putnam 1958). A key insight from SSR was that contradictory theories cannot be simply reduced to a unified (dialectical) synthesis, but rather that the ideas of a successful competing paradigm must displace ideas of the old paradigm. In the next section, we describe Kuhn’s (1970) notion of paradigms. Then, we consider Kuhn’s (1970) thesis of paradigm shifts and scientific revolutions, and provide an evaluation regarding SSR’s influence on our understanding of the scientific process. We conclude by considering the practical implications of paradigms and paradigm shifts for modern business management researchers and suggest that ethical rules of conversation are at least as critical for the health of a scientific community as methodological rules (e.g., the rules of logical positivism) derived from the philosophy of science.

  • STATEMENT OF THE PROBLEM

A paradigm consists of the fundamental ideas, methods, language, and theories that are accepted by the members of a scientific community. A paradigm is critical to the potential progress of science as “no natural history can be interpreted in the absence of at least some implicit body of intertwined theoretical and methodological belief that permits selection, evaluation, and criticism” (Kuhn, 1970: 16–17) SSR emphasized the importance of the evolution of science (Bird 2000, Wray 2011). Thus, SSR brought back historical insights that had been dropped with the eminence of logical positivism and its focus on empirical evidence (Ayer 1959, Carnap 1937). SSR was not an historical account of science, but instead pointed out how the textbook accounts of science highlighting received theory differ substantially from the rich descriptions of the process of advancing this theory. SSR showed that science primarily advances through shifts in theory and not by the accumulation of knowledge, which was commonly held prior to publication of SSR (Oppenheim and Putnam 1958). A key insight from SSR was that contradictory theories cannot be simply reduced to a unified (dialectical) synthesis, but rather that the ideas of a successful competing paradigm must displace ideas of the old paradigm. The problem confronting the study is to proffer a  critical evaluation of Thomas Kuhn

 

  • OBJECTIVE OF THE STUDY

The main objective of the study is a critical evaluation of Thomas Kuhn

The specific objective include

  1. To determine khun arguments and contributions concerning paradigms, paradigm shifts, and scientific revolutions.
  2. To determine the khuns interpretation of the concept
  3. To determine the practical implications of paradigms and paradigm shifts

 

  • SIGNIFICANCE OF THE STUDY

The  practical implications of paradigms and paradigm shifts impacts on  contemporary business management researchers and suggest that ethical rules of conversation are at least as critical for the health of a scientific community as methodological rules (e.g., the rules of logical positivism) derived from the philosophy of science.

  • SCOPE OF THE STUDY

The study focuses on a  critical evaluation of Thomas Kuhn

This study provides key arguments and contributions of Kuhn (1970) concerning paradigms, paradigm shifts, and scientific revolutions. We provide interpretations of Kuhn’s (1970) key ideas and concepts, especially as they relate to business management research. We conclude by considering the practical implications of paradigms and paradigm shifts for contemporary business management researchers and suggest that ethical rules of conversation are at least as critical for the health of a scientific community as methodological rules (e.g., the rules of logical positivism) derived from the philosophy of science.

  • LIMITATION OF THE STUDY

 

The study was confronted by logistics and time constraints

  • DEFINITION OF TERMS

The Concept of a Paradigm

A mature science, according to Kuhn, experiences alternating phases of normal science and revolutions. In normal science the key theories, instruments, values and metaphysical assumptions that comprise the disciplinary matrix are kept fixed, permitting the cumulative generation of puzzle-solutions, whereas in a scientific revolution the disciplinary matrix undergoes revision, in order to permit the solution of the more serious anomalous puzzles that disturbed the preceding period of normal science.

A CRITICAL EVALUATION OF THOMAS KUHN.

Sharing is caring!

Leave a Reply