Normal Science
I’m halfway thru writing a brief book on the history of the climate change campaign. I’ve been too distracted lately to complete it; and I have fallen into the dreaded trap of embarking on too many projects at once.
One completed chapter of the book is tentatively titled “Propaganda about Propaganda: The Sociology of Scientific Knowledge.” The chapter has five segments beginning with “Normal Science.”
Although I had read several books from sociologists on science; researching this chapter was my first deep dive into sociology of science journals. The material is fascinating, uber-relevant and read by practically no one outside sociological circles.
My research uncovered a “who dunnit” tale about a brief and shining moment wherein sociologists (especially in Britain) began unearthing inconvenient truths about the construction of scientific “facts.” This engendered a backlash (the “Science Wars”) resulting in those snoopy sociologists being brought to heel.
Normal Science
Thomas Kuhn’s The Structure of Scientific Revolutions debuted as a monograph in the 1962 edition of the International Encyclopedia of Unified Science. Later that year the University of Chicago issued Structure in book form. In 1962 Structure sold 919 copies. In 1963 it sold 774. A second edition, bolstered by a 30-page supplement, appeared in 1969. By 1971 some 90,000 hardcover and paperback copies had been sold. By 1987 over 650,000 copies had been sold as Structure had become required reading for many Sociology, Philosophy and History students. (1)
The current (2012) edition includes an Introduction by philosopher of science, Ian Hacking. Millions have read Structure. Kuhn hoped Structure would: “produce a decisive transformation in the image of science.” Mission accomplished, according to Professor Hacking.
Although it was destined to be overthrown by Bio-tech and Computer-tech, in 1962 Physics ruled the sciences. Forever the physicist, Kuhn took Physics as his model. While broadly chronicling ground-breaking scientific theories, Structure spares but half a page for Darwin.
A Math paper is like an egg – if it is part bad, it is all bad. (2) Humanities papers can be erroneous yet redeemable. Structure is a case in point. Structure:
- is overwhelmingly about Physics which Kuhn wrongly presumes is indicative of all science;
- uncritically relays dubious internal narratives about 20th century “revolutions” in Physics;
- does not discuss the impact on science of social forces external to science;
- neglects changes to higher education over the past four centuries; and,
- ultimately defends the scientific status quo.
Nevertheless, what Structure says about “normal science” is more germane now than it was in 1962.
Kuhn defines normal science as:
“…a strenuous and devoted attempt to force nature into the conceptual boxes supplied by a professional education.” (3)
To this he adds:
Mopping up operations are what engage most scientists throughout their careers. They constitute what I am calling normal science… No part of the aim of normal science is to call forth new sorts of phenomenon; indeed those that will not fit in the box are not seen at all. (4)
And:
Normal science… suppresses fundamental novelties because they are necessarily subversive of its basic commitments. (5)
Aristotle’s “paradeigma” is synonymous with our “exemplar.” Paradeigmas were fitting scenarios; teaching aids. The Romans translated paradeigma into “exemplum.” Structure is saturated with the term “paradigm.” One scholar tabulated 22 distinct nuances of “paradigm” within Structure.
A paradigm is a set of analogies, equations, applications, experiments and observations related to a specific hypothesis. Paradigms form the foundations of scientific traditions. Paradigms are the “standard models” facilitating professional communication and assessment. Paradigms are the “working hypotheses” unifying schools of thought. They are the foci of “scientific consensuses.”
Paradigms are inseparable from “scientific communities” i.e., thought-collectives that can number fewer than 100 scientists but which are frequently magnitudes larger. Scientific communities revolve around, and are defined by, their shared paradigms.
Successful paradigms spawn puzzles. Science education (which Kuhn casually calls “indoctrination”) consists mainly of making students solve the puzzles listed at the end of textbook chapters. These questions require students to demonstrate an ability to manipulate a paradigm’s core algebraic equations (e.gs., F=MA or E=MC2). Students are trained to spot signature paradigms inside a variety of phenomena.
Paradigms are the Alpha-to-Omega of normal science:
“Without commitment to a paradigm there could be no normal science.” (6)
Normal science: “aims to refine, extend and articulate a paradigm that is already in existence.” (7)
Normal research discovers only what it is expected to discover. Normal scientists (in Kuhn’s words: “hacks”) grind away solely on officially pre-scripted conundrums because:
…in normal science, the research worker is a solver of puzzles, not a tester of paradigms. (8)
Thus, normal science journals contain only:
- re-determinations of significant facts;
- matchings of new facts to the paradigm; and,
- further articulations of the paradigm, usually in algebraic treatises. (9)
Normal scientists stack stone upon stone in tribute to their almighty paradigm.
Kuhn dates the concept of “scientific revolution” to Kant’s Critique of Pure Reason (1787). Kant espied two scientific revolutions – the former occurring when Greeks transformed Babylonian mathematics into proofs from postulates; and the latter being Galileo’s use of the experimental method and the laboratory.
Modern scholars identify the Scientific Revolution as an epic running from 1543 to 1687 starring Bacon, Galileo and Newton.
Kuhn penned The Copernican Revolution in 1957. Soon after, he toyed with an entirely separate revolution situated in the early 19th century wherein the study of heat, light, electricity and magnetism became mathematized.
This period is better defined as a leap forward in measurement and instrumentation. Mathematization (i.e., algebraization) of these fields awaited Maxwell’s 1860s doodlings.
While normal science cannot change paradigms it can, according to Kuhn, generate anomalies that lead to crises which then cause paradigm shifts, i.e., scientific revolutions.
(This sequence of events preceded neither the Einsteinian nor the Quantum “revolutions” of early 20th century German Physics. Kuhn’s ulterior motive for writing Structure appears to have been to induct these two pseudo-revolutions into the hall of famous discoveries alongside Heliocentricity or the Oxygen Theory of Combustion et al. Kuhn’s exemplars don’t jibe with Kuhn’s paradigm.)
Pre-revolutionary periods (“crisis science”) witness proliferations of dueling articulations. Scientists talk past one another. Words change meanings. Limits to what proponents of opposing theories can communicate to one another are hit. “Incommensurability” reigns. A scientist’s rejection of one paradigm is simultaneously an embrace of its rival. Switches of allegiance are inspirational “conversions” not sober re-assessments.
Post-1962 the term “paradigm” became ubiquitous in academic literature. Kuhn sought to clarify paradigm’s meaning in a 1974 paper but eventually, having lost control of the word, abandoned it.
Kuhn became the darling of Science Studies scholars despite his disdain for Sociology. Various sociologies of science blossomed after Structure – nourished in part by the book’s success. Kuhn pooh-poohed this trend.
Footnotes
- Kuhn, Thomas. The Structure of Scientific Revolutions; University of Chicago, 2012. Data on book sales etc. found in this paragraph are from Ian Hacking’s 30-page Introduction. All further parenthetic references to Hacking are from this Introduction.
- Collins, Harry & Pinch, Trevor. The Golem: what you should know about science; University of Cambridge Press, Second Edition, 1998, page 154.
- Kuhn, page 5.
- Ibid, page 24.
- Ibid, page 5.
- Ibid, page 100.
- Ibid, page 122.
- Ibid, page 144.
- Ibid, page 24. See also Hacking’s Introduction in same volume.
Header image: Youtube
Please Donate Below To Support Our Ongoing Work To Defend The Scientific Method
PRINCIPIA SCIENTIFIC INTERNATIONAL, legally registered in the UK as a company 
incorporated for charitable purposes. Head Office: 27 Old Gloucester Street, London WC1N 3AX.
Trackback from your site.
Robert Beatty
| #
“ I’m halfway thru writing a brief book on the history of the climate change campaign. I’ve been too distracted lately to complete it; and I have fallen into the dreaded trap of embarking on too many projects at once.”
I think this essay is a good indication of how trapped you have become.
Reply
William Walter Kay
| #
Actually the blurb above the article was an email to the editor that I didn’t intend to have posted. No harm done; but you’ve piqued my curiosity Robert. Pray tell, what did you mean by the final “trapped” comment?
Reply
James McGinn
| #
WWK:
Pray tell, what did you mean by the final “trapped” comment?
JMcG:
Like all climate change whackos, Robert is just looking for a rational to dismiss you when you inevitably come to the conclusion that climate science is the worthless pseudoscience that it actually is.
Reply
William Walter Kay
| #
I see. Yes, for fun I encourage re-reading the articles quotes from Kuhn while imaginarily substituting the word “climate” wherever the word “normal” appears. The shoe fits!
Reply
James McGinn
| #
Human Evolution and the Emergence of the Subconscious
http://www.thunderbolts.info/forum/phpBB3/viewtopic.php?f=9&t=17527
Reply
Jerry Krause
| #
Hi James.
For a person who has been critical of Linus Pauling and his ideas, you seem to borrow freely from his experiences and scholarship.
I have no idea who came up with the idea of the “Subconscious” Mind but I know that Pauling illustrated its existence with a personal story about his explanation of how adding ARGON to the natural atmosphere being breathed rendered a person unconscious without any side-effects.
Have a good day, Jerry
Reply
Jerry Krause
| #
I see I forgot the punch-line: so he proposed the same result could be produced by cooling a person’s brain (head) and it was.
Reply
Howdy
| #
The subconscious is that which allows an individual to operate without consciously thinking about it. Such as driving a car, where certain operations can become automatic.
May I suggest there is no such thing as muscle memory, and that the subconscious is in control, including the ‘automated’ functions of the body.
Reply
LLOYD
| #
As a long-term firearm and use of force instructor, Muscle Memory is a quick way to refer to the fact that repetition in training/actions leads to quick reflexes and smooth reactions. The brain is also referred to as a ‘muscle’ that requires training and use to grow memory and stored knowledge. We can quibble about the exact definition of a muscle, but the concept remains the same.
Howdy
| #
Hi LLOYD, and Jerry,
This is beyond training, and muscle. You both miss entirely what I’m referring to, but let’s leave it there.
Jerry Krause
| #
Hi Howdy,
I agree with what you state about physical activities; however I believe that both James and Pauling are referring to something which is mental not created by repetition. And I believe that each individual is different and has skills which must be “honed” by using that unique skill and developing a confidence that it works if one doesn’t try to control it.
James, could you agree that Rational Thought hinders one’s imagination? Einstein states “Imagination is more important than knowledge.” at the same time he states “it’s not that I’m so smart, it’s just that I stay with problems longer.” From which I conclude one needs to be patient at the same time one really forgets the problem. Yes, I agree; this makes no sense.
Have a good day, Jerry
Reply
Howdy
| #
Hi Jerry,
By definition, my comment has nothing to do with honing skills, confidence, nor repetition. The subconscious works in concert, but apart from, the conscious. One simply isn’t aware a of it.
James McGinn
| #
Mostly my criticism of Pauling is limited to the fundamental error he made in regard to Hydrogen bonding of water
Why H2O Polarity is Variable
https://youtu.be/KzkxdWWg3HU
Reply
William Walter Kay
| #
I quibble with your definitions of “agriculture” and “logic” but I see what you’re getting at – and this is of vital importance. Do scientific authorities know they are lying?
There is ample evidence provided by the whole climate-gate gang (Jones, Mann et al) that they were “consciously” conspiring to manipulate data. This has happened before i.e., Einstein/Eddington’s solar eclipse experiment etc.
Overtime and lower down Big Science’s chain of command, however, one finds True Believers so thoroughly indoctrinated that their false utterances cannot properly be called lying. Even they must have subconscious doubts about the dominant paradigm but suppress these for career purposes. Professors are a cynical and circumspect tribe.
Reply
Jerry Krause
| #
Hi William,
I learned from the teaching of Louis Agassiz that the most obvious can be the most difficult to ‘see’.
Case in point: (https://principia-scientific.com/feynmans-blunder-part-2/)
I ask you: How many (what percentage) people know that we see see the Sun rising before it should? How many (what percentage) people know the ’cause’ which required more observations than just when you see the first bright ‘speck’ of direct sunshine which isn’t actually direct sunshine.
Relative to Feynman’s blunder, I read: “All truths [facts] are easy to understand once they are discovered; the point is to discover them.” (Galileo)
Have a good day, Jerry
Reply
James McGinn
| #
WWK: Do scientific authorities know they are lying?
JMcG: Even though most of the time they are aware that they are more confused than they are willing to reveal, I think usually they don’t fully realize they are lying.
Meteorology is Inundated with Superstition
https://youtu.be/lMQAhTc0hYk
James McGinn / Solving Tornadoes
Reply
Jerry Krause
| #
Hi James and PSI Readers and Herb Rose too,
James, I suspect (believe), do not claim to know, that you read that Herb Rose recently repeated the reasoning of Aristotle and the other philosophers of that time, that the Earth stood still and did not rotate about its rotational axis, and therefore the Earth was the center of the Universe.
Herb common mixed “conventionally” accepted Scientific ideas with his ‘weird’ ideas like yours; that the atmosphere does not contain individual, independent water molecules like the independent nitrogen and oxygen gaseous molecules of our atmosphere.
I consider both Herb and you need to tell PSI readers if you actually accept that you are lying, or if you are merely confused. As for myself, I accept that the accepted ideas of SCIENCE are not certain as clearly stated by Einstein, Feynman, and most recently by Jim Allison, 2018 Nobel Prize Winner in medicine. {I will add a link to his PSI article of 12/12/2019} after I submit this comment.
Herb seems to use this fact that the accepted ideas of SCIENCE are not certain to propose that until his ideas are proven to be ABSOLUTELY WRONG by experiment (or even simple well known observation which seem to have been honestly overlooked) he (HERB) is free to offer any idea as an alternative to the accepted, uncertain, idea.
Jame, you claim that there are experiments (observations) which Pauling’s cannot explain with his uncertain hydrogen bonding idea. but as yet you have not shared with me what these experiments and/or observations actually are. So I might conclude you do not actually know any experiments/observations that Pauling’s idea cannot reasonably explain. Or, that you know of any experimental results or observation which absolutely proves any of his ideas to be absolutely wrong. Hence, when claim that his idea predicts something which can be proven to be absolutely wrong, you must know you are lying. Otherwise, you could likely win a Nobel Prize for demonstrating the prediction is absolutely wrong as Galileo did by dropping objects of significantly different masses from high places and observing that it was difficult to see which actually struck the ground before the other.
Have a good day, Jerry
Reply
Jerry Krause
| #
Hi James and PSI Readers,
(https://principia-scientific.com/?s=jim+Allison)
Have a good day, Jerry
James McGinn
| #
Jerry:
. . . ideas like yours; that the atmosphere does not contain individual, independent water molecules . . .
James:
It’s a matter of critical thinking, Jerry.
Jerry:
I consider both Herb and you need to tell PSI readers if you actually accept that you are lying, or if you are merely confused.
James:
Is the H2O phase diagram lying also?
Jerry:
As for myself, I accept that the accepted ideas of SCIENCE are not certain
James:
I’ve always thought this was obvious.
Jerry:
James, you claim that there are experiments (observations) which Pauling’s cannot explain with his uncertain hydrogen bonding idea.
James:
Right. They are referred to as the anomalies of H2O.
Jerry:
but as yet you have not shared with me what these experiments and/or observations actually are.
James:
Information about the anomalies of H2O is readily available in the public domain. You don’t need me to show them to you.
I figured out why the anomalies are anomalous. I figured out Pauling’s error. Pauling failed to realize that hydrogen bonds contradict polarity in both of the H2O molecules that participate in the bond. This devastatingly subtle mistake has wide rangin implications in much of the natural and geographic sciences.
James McGinn / Genius
Herb Rose
| #
Hi Jerry,
My comment about the Earth being at the center of the universe was a response to your stupid assertion that science is the observation. What observation have you done that shows the Earth is not the center of the universe? The heliocentric solar system is a result of thinking not observation but you are incapable of thought and can only believe what someone else tells you. You accept as true only things you read that are other peoples opinions and since you don’t question or think about what is being said you are a parrot repeating other’s words.
You ignore .any observation that doesn’t conform to your accepted beliefs or cast doubt on the orthodoxy. Your prophet Feynman said science was the belief that the experts were wrong. You are not a scientist but a believer of the established, whether it’s the Bible or the blurb on a book jacket. Your assertion that other people are lying because they do not accept what you believe shows that you are a pompous idiot.
.
James McGinn
| #
HerB:
My comment about the Earth being at the center of the universe was a response to your stupid assertion that science is the observation.
JMcG:
Of course I knew that Jerry was misrepresenting your words. Jerry is a believer and believers have no ethics. And unfortunately there are millions and millions of them.
Herb:
What observation have you done that shows the Earth is not the center of the universe?
JMcG:
Jerry won’t correctly interpret what you are saying here. He will assume that you are arguing in favor of an earth-centric model. He will not grasp that you are pointing out that his methodology is a recipe for confirmation bias.
Herb:
The heliocentric solar system is a result of thinking not observation but you are incapable of thought and can only believe what someone else tells you. You accept as true only things you read that are other peoples opinions and since you don’t question or think about what is being said you are a parrot repeating other’s words.
JMcG:
I agree. Jerry is a believer. Believers don’t think.
You ignore .any observation that doesn’t conform to your accepted beliefs or cast doubt on the orthodoxy. Your prophet Feynman said science was the belief that the experts were wrong.
It’s ironic that Jerry doesn’t grasp that Feynman is speaking in opposition to what he (Jerry) is proposing.
Herb:
You are not a scientist but a believer of the established, whether it’s the Bible or the blurb on a book jacket. Your assertion that other people are lying because they do not accept what you believe shows that you are a pompous idiot.
JMcG:
I agree. Jerry exemplifies how group think stupidity is constantly trying to revise scientific methods to confirm the dumbed down beliefs that comprise their dumbed down models.
Meteorology is Inundated with Superstition
James McGinn / Genius
Reply