Lecture on the Nature of Science and Criticism

Are Scientists Critical?

• Common belief: Scientists are critical and skeptical, always requiring evidence.
• Importance of criticism in science:
  • Facilitates error discovery and correction.
  • Supports the quest for truth.

Karl Popper's View

• Critical thinking is central to the scientific process.
• Falsificationism:
  • Scientists try to disprove their own theories.
  • Pseudoscientists protect their theories, lacking critical approach.

Thomas Kuhn's Perspective

• Critique of the view that science is always critical.
• Pattern in scientific progress:
  • Alternating phases that follow a standard sequence across natural sciences.
• Phases identified by Kuhn:
  • Pre-paradigmatic Phase: Initial phase before an established paradigm.
  • Normal Science: Most common phase, when scientists work within a set paradigm.
  • Crisis: When existing paradigms are questioned.
  • Scientific Revolution: Overthrow of old paradigms, leading to new ones.
• Transition between phases:
  • Science moves from pre-paradigmatic to normal science, and can cycle through crisis and revolution phases.

Normal Science

• Dominant state of scientific practice per Kuhn.
• Characteristics:
  • Scientists take many theories, concepts, and methods for granted.
  • Paradigm: A collection of taken-for-granted elements that guide scientific work.
• Benefits of a Paradigm:
  • Provides confidence and stability in scientific practice.
  • Allows focus on specific problems without questioning foundational elements.
  • Facilitates progress by eliminating the need to constantly question basic facts.

Why is Science Perceived as Critical?

• Despite the stability of paradigms, critical phases (crisis and revolution) highlight scientific scrutiny.
• The next lecture will explore the critical phases in more detail.