Skip to main content
Loading Explore guides…
Scientific Revolutions · Acedra
Home
Explore
Philosophy
Scientific Revolutions
Sign in to save
Chat
If YouTube asks you to sign in, open the video on YouTube.
Watch on YouTube
Reload player
Transcript
80 segments
Copy
Hide video
0:02
[Music]
0:20
you
0:29
now what we have been doing that as we have a little discussed indeed scientific practices are not exhausted in terms of our puzzle solving activities day to day research activities or through norm bound science normal science ok science which is guided by only day-to-day research activities okay that's why we have already discussed if normal science is the tradition-bound activity then revolutionary science is the tradition settling activity
1:08
okay that's why when the paradigm fails to promote fruitful interesting and smooth normal science okay it is considered to be in a crisis the depending of the crisis leads to the replacement of the existing paradigm by a new one then we must go ahead with a new mérida and this replacement is called scientific revolutions that's why as we just now said that no normal science is your tradition bound activity whereas revolutionary science is a tradition chattering
1:51
complement to the tradition bound activity of normal cells and thus once the science enters the paradigmatic stage stage of model model of inquiry paradigmatic inquiry okay it is characterized by first normal sense and then revolutionary science and in ceará temporal terms normal science occupies much larger space than Dutch revolutionary science revolutionary science may occur once a while but you will find more often than not okay non revolutionary or norm
2:34
bound or normal science that is why that is to say science is revolutionary once a while and most is non revolutionary or normal in character also the scientific character activity engaged in by most of the practitioners can be characterized actually in terms of normal sense because of this temporal numerical magnitude okay try to understand this we can say that much of the scientific activity
3:08
as we ordinarily encountered is normal though this normal course is occasionally interrupted by revolutions which change the form content and direction of the process of the scientific community which is basically normal by which we mean a non revolutionary committed activity by which we mean a traditional activity okay from here on what what we are going to do we are trying to delineate different stages we started with pre paradigmatic stage paradigmatic stage
3:51
normal science and now how we are going to have crisis through anomalies okay and then it will be followed by I mean normal science and normal is Christ he said then we encounter a new paradigm mediated by revolutionary science scientific remains normal science demands a thoroughgoing convergent thinking okay because normal science is practiced in the context of apparently that's what he in the pre paradigmatic stage as we had witnessed divergent thinking in the case
4:34
of creative areas like art literature Mooji philosophy even in medicine but but within a paradigm within the paradigmatic stage normal science demands a thoroughgoing convergent thinking and is preceded by an education that involves a dogmatic initiation in a pre-established tradition that the student is not equipped to evaluate normal science is an activity that purports not to question the existing paradigm because of the convergence in
5:16
thinking but to increase the precision and coating from Koons the structure of scientific revolutions of 1962 where Kuhn suggests that normal science is an activity that purports not to interrogate the existing paradigm but to increase the precision of the existing theory by attempting to adjust existing theory or existing observation in order to bring the two into closer and closer agreement
5:49
first secondly normal science is an activity that poor cuts not to interrogate the existing paradigm but to extend the existing Curie to areas that it is expected to cover but in which it has never before been tracked in other words normal Sciences consists in solving puzzles that are encountered in force in nature into the conceptual Knox is supplied by the reigning banned by the paradigm
6:23
which rules the roost by the existing birthday it is in this way Kuhn attempts to account for the smooth defined and directional character of day-to-day scientific research in terms of the features of what he calls normal sites and normal science has no room for any radical thinking because radical thinking is the hallmark of scientific revolution I mean revolutionary science whereas normal science has no room for any radical gentle and normal science also is limited
7:00
to the enterprise of solving certain puzzles in accordance with the specified by the existing existing model and these rules these rules of the existing paradigm are never interrogated but only accepted and followed that's why prior to prior to Einstein or prior to Copernicus for example in astronomy Ptolemies claims in astronomy were never questioned but only accepted and followed and the
7:36
aim of scientific education is to ensure that that the paradigm is internalized by a student now in we do not want to question the existing paradigm the only thing is that we need to internalize the existing pattern in other words the professional training in science consists in accepting the paradigm as given and equipping oneself to promote the cause of the paradigm by giving it greater
8:07
precision and further elaboration and the day to day scientific research does not aim at anything fundamentally new but only at the application of what has already been given namely the theoretical ideas and the practical guidelines for solving certain puzzles it is in this sense that normal science is not a revolutionary sign no it is not a part of revolution not a science it is highly a tradition bounded tivity it is it never questions now the existing paradigm okay however
8:42
it is this normal science it is this tradition bound activity which makes science a successful enterprise Combe says that normal science the puzzle-solving activity is a highly accumulative enterprise eminently successful in its aim the steady extension of the scope and precision of scientific knowledge in all these respects it fits with I mean normal science fits with great precision the most usual image of scientific works yet standard product of the scientific enterprise
9:21
is missing that is normal science does not aim at novelties of fact or theory and when successful friends okay I mean normal science always follows the pattern or the tradition the pattern of the existing paradigms does not aim at novelties of fact or theory okay in order to reconcile the the undeniable fact of novelty that science exhibits according to Kuhn by making new discoveries with
9:58
somewhat hectic named phenomenon of normal science it is necessary to show that research under a paradigm must be a particularly effective way of inducing paradigm change but then how if paradigms undergo change under the normal scientific tradition when normal science doesn't question the existing paradigm then how can paradigms undergo transformation as pointed out earlier okay normal science purports to force nature in the conceptual boxes provided by the reigning
10:42
paradigm or existing paradigm the dominant paradigm by solving puzzles in accordance with the rules and regulations and guidelines provided by the existing paradigm whose validity is accepted without question and during this process of puzzle solving certain hurdles may be encountered because the because if the existing paradigm cannot solve the problems or through the guidelines of normal
11:16
science then then then certain hurdles certain obstacles certain hindrances may be encountered we then speak of a No what are these animals what do we mean by an homage the animal is we mean unexpected or unanticipated occurrences or happenings okay when we speak of anomalies that is and I normally arises when a puzzle remains puzzle define every attempt to resolve it within the framework of the existing paradigm the puzzle doesn't get solved then puzzle remains a puzzle
12:04
that is where we encounter certain problems within the normal scientific tradition but appearance of one or two anomalies is not adequate to overthrow an existing paradigm because you may say that no these are only the exceptional cases but only through accept so only by looking at exceptional cases we do not in general overthrow a dominant paradigm an existing paradigm ok the ushering in
12:37
the era of a new paradigm has to be preceded by the appearances of not one or two anomalies not many small animals but major ones in order to declare a paradigm to be crisis-ridden what is required is an accumulation of many many many major anomalies these unexpected unanticipated occurrences or happenings must be accumulated must be major ones and they must be accumulated in such a manner to declare that a paradigm is crisis-ridden but there is no clear-cut or
13:18
objective criterion according to kun to decide which anomalies are major or which animal is your minor and how many are no anomalies must be accumulated ok to declare paradigm to be crisis reduce in other words there is no criterion there is no indicator that is no yardstick okay which decides which determines whether a perceived anomaly is a puzzle or the symptom of a deep crisis we do not know the issue will be decided by the community of practitioners of the discipline
14:03
through the judgment of its peers they are in lies the problem I mean therein lies the beauty of beauty of kuhnian methodological schema so far as the methods of science are concerned whether the existing paradigm is in crisis or not we'll come to know only through the consensus that the scientific community that the practitioners of the particular discipline that they bring that's why the issue really the the controversy the the the debate okay that's why the issue will
14:46
be decided by the community of practitioners of the discipline through the judgment of its peers once the scientific community declares the existing paradigm to be crisis ridden the search for the alternative paradigm begins of course the crisis ridden paradigm will not be given up until and unless a new theory is accepted in its place I mean the crisis ridden paradigm will continue to be there if we know until and unless we find a new paradigm in its place and not simply we find
15:25
a new paradigm but it also has to be accepted by the community of practitioners of the discipline through the judgment of its peers okay it is only it is only during this transitional period of search for the new paradigm that the scientific debates become radical when not within normal science you encounter a new knowledge and through these through the stimulation of major anomalies you come to know that no the existing paradigm is in crisis okay then and when the search for
16:07
the transitional period of research for the new paradigm comes up then we encounter the kind of the then we encounter the radical scientific debates okay not the norm bound scientific debates but rather tradition chattering centric debates and during the process of the search for an alternative the scientific community must make a choice between competing theories in this choice the evaluation procedures of normal science are of no use for these depend in part upon a particular
16:49
paradigm and that paradigm is at issue the issue concerning the paradigm choice cannot be settled by logic and experiment alone okay because of the the complexity of the research problem the issue concerning the paradigm choice the the issue concerning the selection of for particular paradigm cannot be settled by logic and experiment alone what ultimately matters is the consensus of the relevant scientific community in other words the selection of a theory the choice of
17:29
a theory as the new paradigm has to be understood in terms of the value judgments which a community of scientific practitioners exercises in the context in which it finds itself why why Kuhn said no the issue concerning the choice of a paradigm cannot be settled by logic and experimental own logic when I say mean scientific logic logic in scientific discovery experiment means I mean it is
18:00
a method I mean there these two are there that's why from the very beginning that we discussed the way the methods which which signs deployed okay there they must be empirically confirmed and logically consistent statements of regularities in this sense the the issue concerning the the selection of a particular paradigm model cannot be settled by logic and experiment alone suppose let me give you an example whether India should go ahead with nuclear tests or not does it
18:40
happen only on the basis of logic in scientific discovery and experiments in Sciences no whether India should go ahead with nuclear tests or not is it simply a scientific question or a political question whether India should go ahead with nuclear tests is it based on some scientific advices or is it based on the consensus that was forced with between the scientific and political elites of the country this is where value judgments come up but as we have seen during
19:19
while when discussing positivism there in science there must be a dichotomy between fact and value facts are value neutral whereas values do not have factual content but in this case I mean the kind of scientific policies the kind of scientific judgments that we make the kind of scientific decisions that we make okay they have become a part of I mean I mean the the the way these such paradigms have emerged they must be such emergence of such paradigms must be understood okay in
20:02
terms of the value judgments which a community of scientific practitioners exercises in the context in which it finds itself there so the context is very important okay that's why it may not be determined through only logic and experiment while choosing while choosing a particular theory for the status of a new paradigm okay the scientific community might advance arguments that seek to show that the chosen through resolves important problems is simpler than the rest and so suppose
20:49
this service let me do that well while selecting a particular theory okay for the status of a new paradigm because the new paradigm has to replace the older one all the the scientific community might are once arguments that that seek to show that the selected theory the chosen theory solves important problems and it is also simpler than the rest and so on but these are all value judgments
21:20
since there is no objective criterion to decide which problem is important which problem is not important which problem is significant which problem is not significant what is simple what what kind of method that is simple what kind of method that is complex okay and so on in other words that theory is chosen which fits the value commitments of a scientifically then it is not fact-based that is value aged now the transition has taken place from fact or value jism on the
21:57
basis of consensus among the practitioners of the scientific community hence the question of choice becomes the question of value okay as we have discussed no observationally supposition ulis why now because any observation that we make okay must involve some amount of selects on the basis of what selection is bale what is the basis of selection and selection is based on culture relevance as Weber said if selection is is based on cultural relevance then the question of choice
22:37
or selection becomes the question of value I mean it may not be a fact and [ __ ] points out that the question of value can be answered only in terms of criteria that lie outside the purview of normal science altogether and it is that recourse to external criteria that most previous slim makes paradigm debates revolutionary okay now the question that the the question of selection the question of cultural relevance the question of value that we talk about in the context of kuhnian
23:25
methodology of science okay then it is not based on certain effect it is also not based on value in simplistic sense but value the way it has been organized the way it has been interpreted by the practitioners of a particular discipline I mean the scientific community in this sense does the selection of a paradigm cannot be explicated in the natural language of mathematical equations and experimental procedures but in terms of specific perceptions which a scientific community as a
24:12
social entity entertains what it considers to be the basic value of its professional expertise in other words the ultimate explanation of a theory choice the ultimate explanation of the selection of theory is not methodological but sociological according to hence in kuhn scheme the idea of scientific community as a social entity is exhume attic that's why whenever we make some kind of selection okay of a paradigm in sciences even in sciences okay it may not be based on fact it
24:59
mostly is based on value as has been envisaged by kuhnian methodological account of science in the context of now the consensus which is forced by the practitioners of that particular discipline while making the judgment by the by the it is also determined the selection of a new paradigm is also determined in terms of the peer group that's why these days you find many journals they have peer
25:36
review system okay and for Kuhn it is not simply I mean selection of a new theoretical paradigm it is not simply methodological but sociological okay perhaps for this reason consoles idea of scientific community as a social entity is axiomatic that is to say if if the term paradigm is to be successfully explicated scientific communities must first be recognized as having an independent existence which implies that one must explain scientific practice in terms of paradigms
26:23
and paradigmatic changes and the letter R to be explicated in terms of a particular scientific community which says the paradigms and brings about paradigmatic changes i mean changes in terms of model thus the concept of a scientific community is basic to the concept of paradigm the concept of scientific community can be explicated only in sociological according to Thomas school hence the ultimate terms of exploitation of scientific activity are not methodological but
27:00
sociological then what is the relationship between the old paradigm which has been or through and the new paradigm which has been accepted what is the relationship between the old paradigm and the nobility and cooms answer to this question is extremely radical according to GU in no obvious sense can one say that the new paradigm is better or truer than the old one who maintains that the
27:36
two successful paradigms cut the world differently they speak different languages they use different idioms okay putting it metaphorically the world changes when a paradigm changes the world changes when the paradigm changes our view of about astronomy changed when we saw the transition from the Ala means person to Copernican revolution and subsequently galleon use inventions okay that's why our voice views our or perspective also changes when a paradigm makes changes with
28:33
whom characteristic lucidity he says I mean the transition from a paradigm in crisis to a new one from which a new tradition of normal science can emerge is far from a cumulative process one is achieved not merely by an articulation or extension of the old paradigm rather it is a constant reconstruction of the field from new fundamentals a reconstruction that changes some of the fields most elementary theoretical generalizations as well as many of its methods and
29:16
applications this apart cone contains that the two paradigms talk different languages idioms even if the same terms are used in two paradigms the terms have different meanings what can be said in the language of one paradigm cannot be translated into the other language based on this reason kun claims that the relationship between the two successive paradigms is incommensurable there isn't there is
29:48
something called incommensurability thesis okay if I say secular regime and communalism that incommensurable okay why because they're a post getting rich that's why the old paradigm okay and the new paradigm there in commensurable Ptolemy and Copernicus might have used the same language same mediums same concepts Newton and Einstein might have used the same language idioms concepts they might have you followed the same methods but essentially essentially they're incommensurable
30:34
because because because the new new paradigm it it makes an intellectual and political departure a theoretical departure from the older one okay in this sense no wonder Kuhn compares paradigm shift to gestured switch with this idea the idea of scientific progress as a continuous process and the idea of truth as the obstacle tended stand totally you dated I mean I mean with this the idea of scientific progress as a continuous process and the idea of truth is the absolute
31:23
standard stand totally rejected repudiated a few refuted whom advances what might appear to be an undiluted relativism according to which truth is inter paradigmatic and not interpretive medical that is to say what is true is relative to a paradigm and there is no truth lying outside all paradigms okay then what we have what are we discussed till I mean in the methods of science what we have discussed we have discussed inductive ISM hypothesis him then positivism then popper and
32:08
corn popper in Kuhn they constitute the the most dominant methods in the history in the annals of history of science okay perhaps intellectually most immolating controversies have emerged from these two intellectuals okay in the context of popper the first step suggests I mean this and according to Papa science must start with a problem it must suggest a hypothesis or in the form of a tentative solution to a problem or hunch which goes through the process of systematic
32:51
falsification and such systematic falsification may and lead to refutation or corroboration I mean if hypothesis is tested wrong then we must refute this we must reject this hypothesis but if it is but if a hypothesis is tested right then we must be able to corroborate it we should not accept it because under what limiting conditions particular hypothesis is tested right okay not all not under all limiting I mean not under all circumstances such hypothesis a particular
33:30
hypothesis is tested right that's what we must be able to corroborate it we must be able to keep our hypothesis permanently tentative as against these who suggested that every science passes through two stages one the pre paradigmatic stage and two the paradigmatic stage then what is the role of science I mean in the pre paradigmatic stage what we see in that there is divergent thinking you
34:04
will find more than one mode of practicing that particular science even in the case of astronomy physics chemistry and biology and when there is a concept of convergent thinking when that there is a scope of convergent thinking then science becomes mature science enters the paradigmatic stage from the pre paradigmatic stage when science makes a leap from pre paradigmatic stage to a paradigmatic stage science becomes mature okay within that's why if I say there is a transition
34:46
from pre paradigmatic stage to paradigmatic stress I mean there is a transition from from divergent thinking to convergent thinking there is a trend transition from reality of practices to the uniformity of practice and astronomy was the first discipline which entered the paradigmatic stage now by building by by building such consensus by having that convergent thinking followed by physics chemistry and biology but in but according to Kuhn in certain
35:23
areas in creative areas like art literature Mooji philosophy and even medicine okay it is extremely
35:34
impossible I mean it is absolutely impossible to make such trendy transition from pre paradigmatic stage to paradigmatic stage because of the nature of the problems then in the paradigmatic stage we encounter I mean with that we try to emphasize more on Sciences which are guided by certain norms rules regulations of the existing paradigm that's why it is called normal science nor bound science and when normal science fails to address the problems of unexpected or unanticipated
36:11
occurrences or happenings which Kuhn suggested that when normal science is encountered by certain anomalies I mean unanticipated or unexpected occurrences okay then that normal scientific tradition gets I mean becomes crisis-ridden and the situation of crisis always forces us to search for a new paradigm okay and that new paradigm is achieved okay by rejecting the existing paradigm by looking at the revolutionary science or scientific revolutions which is a tradition
37:04
chattering that's why what hoon suggested that if normal science is the tradition bound activity then revolutionary science is the tradition chattering activity okay this is this is very important no from this we are not going to directly jump to pair of it okay well first try to understand the comparisons between popper and we have compared you know we have we have discussed inductive ISM hypothesis Jim pop positivism Papa and cool and then it is important make a
37:49
comparison between popper and cool and then we'll move on to Paul fair events against method outline of an anarchistic methodology okay we see some of the radical implications of whom's bo decent can be brought about by juxtaposing his views with those of popper the hallmark of science according to popper is critical thing as you have already discussed in fact science exemplifies critical thinking at its best if you look at critical thinking you can go back to what Deckard said
38:36
I mean Cartesian philosophy of science suggests that cogito ergo sum I think therefore I am I I doubt therefore I am that's why for popper in fact science exemplifies critical thinking at its best since critical thinking considers nothing to be settled and lying beyond all doubt fundamental disagreements and divergent thinking must and in fact do characterize science we have discussed Koons version of the shift from pre paradigmatic stage to paradigmatic stage that shift from
39:17
pre paradigmatic stage to paradigmatic stage suggests the shift from plurality of practices to the uniformity of practice I mean the such shift also indicates the shift from divergent thinking to convergent thinking but but for popper since critical thinking considers nothing to be settled and lying beyond all doubt fundamental disagreements no convergence fundamental disagreements and divergent thinking must need new characterized sense and you have seen according to
39:58
Kohn what constitutes the essence of scientific practice is normal science nor mount science science is guided by certain rules regulations and so on and we have also seen why normal science is a highly tradition-bound activity a puzzle solving activity an activity made possible by a consensus among the practitioners who say a particular paradigm thus if popper sees the essence of science is divergent thinking and fundamental disagreements Coombs is the essence of science
40:37
in convergent thinking and consensus to put it differently the hallmark of science according to cone is tradition-bound thinking in fact according to cone what distinguishes science from the other areas of creative thinking is that whereas in science one finds institutional mechanisms of enforcing consensus the other areas suffer from perpetual disagreements even on even on fundamentals this is a first secondly if popper considers the individual to be the locus of
41:16
scientific activity whom bestows that status upon the scientific community if popper considered the individual to be the locus of scientific activity cool which doubts that status upon the collective on the scientific community both positivists as well as proper looked upon science as the sum total of the work of individual scientists working in accordance with a method this is important though positivists and popper also fundamentally differed on the characterization of that
41:57
particular method is he for what is that method I mean positivists they always looked at that method I mean studying point must be observation whereas for popper it is always the identification of a problem okay observation is theory ladle for copper for per positivists observation is theory independent as opposed to this individualistic account of scientific enterprise Kuhn propounds the collectivistic account of scientific activity okay in Coonskin it is the scientific community
42:39
which constitutes the change this is borne out by the fact that according to Kuhn the scientific community has institutional mechanisms like peer review by which it can settle all the issues such as weather and anomaly is a symptom of crisis or it is merely an exception or how many anomalies suffice to warrant the search for an alternative parody what do what do we mean by major anomaly or minor and minor ones what factors are to be considered in choosing a new theory for
43:16
the status of a new paradigm and so on thirdly popper and Kuhn differ fundamentally in that attitude towards the transition from one theory to another in science according to popper we can explain every case of theory change in terms of certain norms which science always adopts and follows meticulously in fact scientific rationality consists in following these norms but cone contains that an adequate explanation of theory change must be in terms of the value
43:53
judgments made by a community while making the choice according to Kuhn recourse to the so called methodological norms explains nothing I mean when popper was absolutely [Music] confident about the method of I mean methodological rational of science who moved beyond the methodological rational to to value commitments to value judgments in terms of I mean in sociological terms from the point of view from the point of view of popper ok kuhnian a rationalist because
44:41
he sets aside methodological norms and seeks to explain theory change exclusively in terms of non rational or sociological factors or like value commitments of a professional group or an or ideological commitments of a professional group okay by the way what is an ideology I mean theoretically speaking or geologies are myths ideologies are fantasies ideologies are inverted images ideologies are echoes of material life these this characterization of ideology is
45:20
very important while discussing science because because if science has to be objective then it also has to be devoid of any kind of ideology ok in the in the paparella schema but but in the kuhnian schema no I mean for proper science cannot have value judgments value commitments it has you must employ strong methods ok it cannot be ideologically oriented that's why I said what a radiologist ideologies are meets ideologies are fantasies ideologies are inverted images
46:04
ideologies are echoes of material life in quest of truth in question of knowledge one must purge upon his or her etiology I mean in quest of truth in quest of knowledge one go beyond heater or etiology okay in this sense what we are trying to do that what popper tried to do that power tried to provide a strong methodological rationale or strong methodological explanation within the purview of science what comb suggests that very often scientific decisions are made not simply
46:48
on the basis of logic and experiments but on the basis of value judgments of the practitioners of a particular discipline through peerage okay whatever Needham made it off but but but such such sociological account of theory change was attacked by popper popper said Keynesian irrationalist because he sets aside methodological norms and six to explain Theory change exclusively in terms of non rational or sociological factors like value commitments of a professional group
47:28
whatever be the merit of property attack on goon as an arrest analyst we can say that okay we can we can say that poppers attack on cool I mean we can say that Coons control of scientific practice is sociological that is to say according to Kuhn scientific activity cannot be understood by trying to find out the absolute standards which have guided the scientific activity in all edges it can only be understood in terms of the specific judgments which a community makes that a
48:12
particular juncture regarding what it considers to be its value commitments as a professional group the the juxtaposition between popper and kun brings out the radical implications of Koons views regarding the nature of scientific practice however in one respect hoon is very close to Papa both like budget both popper and cool like positivists contained that there is something unique to science though they differ in their explanation of what that uniqueness consists in
48:48
positivists maintain that the hallmark of science is the systematic verifiability of its claims according to popper the uniqueness of science consists in the systematic falsifiability of theories according to kuhn it is consensus which marks out science from the other in age of human endeavor I mean when positivist suggested that the science that that science must start with observation okay the the hallmark of science lies in the fact that all scientific statements
49:31
must be systematically verifiable popper said that it is not systematic verifiability rather yeah it is systematic falsifiability how he signs unique how he's saying supreme how how we must remark make a demarcation between some science and non science the uniqueness of science according to popper consists in the systematic falsifiability of theories for cool it is consensus which marks out science from the other areas of human endeavor that is to
50:09
say [ __ ] like positivists and popper doesn't question whether science is really unicorn oh he kun assumes that to be so cool only wants to show how it is unique okay that is to say instead of raising critical questions about the status of sign about the status science has really acquired in the contemporary culture [ __ ] only seeks to provide an alternative a counter how it has acquired that status in that sense moon's position is quite conservative okay
50:53
and this kind conservative character okay of Kunz views becomes evident when we look at the views of Paul fair event whose iconoclast ideas about science have made him a legend in his own lifetime I mean fair events against method outline of an anarchistic on methodology or an anarchistic outline of an anarchistic theory of knowledge yeah in 1975 okay now let us see to till now what we have done we have tried to delineate the methods of science in terms of inductive ISM
51:42
hypothesis in positivism the methods propounded by two eminent historians and philosophers of science namely karl popper and Thomas Kuhn know we'll go ahead with Paul Faribault whose views about the very idea of scientific method okay require greater attention I mean the way Faribault repudiates the very idea of scientific method not simply on the basis of value judgments I mean not simply on the basis of winds but but on the basis of logic and history okay no we'll see [Music]
53:00
you [Music]
Here to help you learn
Sign in to keep a private conversation with your course tutor.
Ask me anything about the material…
Sign in to chat