Volume 8, Issue 2, June 2020, Page: 49-53
The Rationality of the Process of Theory Change in Science
Bisrat Tesfay, Department of Civics & Ethical Education, Wolaita Sodo University, Wolaita Sodo, Ethiopia
Received: Aug. 27, 2019;       Accepted: Oct. 23, 2019;       Published: Jun. 17, 2020
DOI: 10.11648/j.ijp.20200802.14      View  28      Downloads  26
Abstract
This article gives an ephemeral overview of the most influential views on the nature and process of change in science. Theory change in science is one of the most important issues in philosophy of science. Scientific theories are subject to change beyond space and time. There are various factors that lead theories change such as discomfort among the theories. In this paper, discussing how the rationality of science was related with its methods and methodologies, I tried to show that it was after Kuhn’s work the Structure of Scientific Revolutions that the debate on theory choice becomes a central issue in philosophy of science. Following this the process in theory change in science can be deductive and inductive or rational and non-rational. According to the account of Kuhn’s scientific change there are four steps in the process of scientific change; the predominant one is normal science, anomalies, crisis and finally a new phase of normal science. Then I discussed some of the philosophers who criticize Kuhn’s work Structure of Scientific Revolutions, particularly popper’s criticism on Kuhn; in this regard I also forwarded Kuhn’s response for his critics. Finally I critically compared Kuhn’s and Popper’s ideas on the evolution of science.
Keywords
Falsification, Verification, Scientific Revolutions, Paradigm, Normal Science, Rational Change
To cite this article
Bisrat Tesfay, The Rationality of the Process of Theory Change in Science, International Journal of Philosophy. Vol. 8, No. 2, 2020, pp. 49-53. doi: 10.11648/j.ijp.20200802.14
Copyright
Copyright © 2020 Authors retain the copyright of this article.
This article is an open access article distributed under the Creative Commons Attribution License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/) which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.
Reference
[1]
Alex Rosenberg, Philosophy of Science-A contemporary introduction, third edition 2012.
[2]
Applebaum, W. (2005). The Scientific Revolution and the Foundations of Modern Science. London: Greenwood Press.
[3]
Bokulich, W. J. (2015). Kuhn’s Structure of Scientific. Switzerland: © Springer International Publishing.
[4]
Gattei, S. (2009). Karl Popper's Philosophy of Science: Rationality Without Foundations. New York: Routledge.
[5]
Kuhn, T. S. (1996). Structure of Scientific Revolution. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
[6]
Musgrave, I. L. (1970). Criticism and the Growth of Knowledge. London: Cambridge University Press.
[7]
Ladyman, J. (2002). Understanding Philosophy of Science. NewYork: Taylor & Francis e-Library.
[8]
1993 “Kuhn’s Changing Concept of Incommensurability.” The British Journal for the Philosophy of Science 44 (1993): 759–774. Reprinted in Sankey (1997), 21–34.
[9]
Martin Curd, and J. A. Cover, Philosophy of Science: The central issues. New York.
[10]
Popper, Karl Raimund. 2002a. Conjectures and Refutations: The Growth of Scientific Knowledge. Psychology Press.
[11]
Samir Okasha, Philosophy of Science: A very short introduction, Oxford University Press).
[12]
(1987). Logic, Methodology, and Philosophy of Science VII, Moscow, 1987 I edited by Jens Erik Fenstad, Ivan T. Frolov, Risto Hilpinen.
[13]
Stathis, Psillos and Martin, Curd (2008). The Routledge Companion to Philosophy of Science (eds). New York: Taylor & Francis e-Library, 2008.
[14]
Vickers, Brian, ed. Occult and Scientific Mentalities in the Renaissance. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1984.
[15]
Westman, Robert and J. E. McGuire. Hermeticism and the Scientific Revolution. Los Angeles: Clark Memorial Library, 1977.
Browse journals by subject