Normal Science is a Puzzle

[coberst]

Normal science is a puzzle

 

Normal science is a puzzle-solving enterprise. Normal science is a slow accumulation of knowledge by a methodical step-by-step process undertaken by a group of scientists.

 

‘Paradigm’ is a word that was given great meaning and clarity by Thomas Kuhn in his book “The Structure of Scientific Revolutions”.

 

“One of the things a scientific community acquires with a paradigm is a criterion for choosing problems that, while the paradigm is taken for granted, can be assumed to have solutions…A paradigm can, for that matter, even insulate the community from those socially important problems that are not reducible to the puzzle form, because they cannot be stated in terms of the conceptual and instrumental tools the paradigm supplies.”

 

The author notes that all “real science is normally a habit-governed, puzzle-solving activity” and not a philosophical activity. Paradigm and not hypothesis is the active meaning for the ‘new image of science’. Paradigm is neither a theory nor a metaphysical viewpoint.

 

Kuhn’s new image of science—the paradigm—is an artifact (a human achievement), a way of seeing, and is a set of scientific problem solving habits. Normal science means research based upon one or more past achievements ‘that some particular community acknowledges for a time as supplying the foundation for its further practice…and these achievements are sufficiently unprecedented to attract an enduring group pf adherents away from competing modes of scientific activity’ furthermore they are sufficiently open-ended to leave all sorts of problems for the redefined group of practitioners to solve’. Such achievements Kuhn defines as paradigm.

 

“A puzzle-solving paradigm, unlike a puzzle-solving hypothetico-deductive system, has also got to be a concrete ‘way of seeing’.”

 

Kuhn constantly refers to the ‘gestalt switch’ when discussing the switch in reference from one paradigm to another as ‘re-seeing’ action. Each paradigm has been constructed to be a ‘way-of-seeing’. Here Kuhn is speaking not about what the paradigm is but how the paradigm is used. He is defining a paradigm as a newly developed puzzle-solving artifact that is used analogically to understand another artifact; for example, using wire and beads strung together to facilitate understanding the protein molecule.

 

I think that we place “Science” on too high a pedestal and thereby distort our comprehension of political and social problems. We cannot solve social and political problems like we solve the questions formed by the normal sciences.

 

Do you think that the techniques of normal science are directly applicable for solving the problems of society?

[hallenrm]

Here's a small paragraph from the article, The structure of scientific revolutions that is a part of wikipedia

 

The changes that occur in politics, society and business are often expressed in Kuhnian terms, however poor their parallel with the practice of science may seem to scientists and historians of science. The terms "paradigm" and "paradigm shift" have become such notorious clichés and buzzwords that they are viewed in many circles as being effectively devoid of content, and their use in these contexts rarely has any firm foundation in Kuhn's original definitions.

 

:)

[coberst]

Here's a small paragraph from the article, The structure of scientific revolutions that is a part of wikipedia

 

 

 

 

:)

 

Therein lay the rub. The intellectual level of the citizens of the US and, I guess, most other nations is insufficient to prevent poor judgments that can drive the whole world into the ditch very quickly. We are easily manipulated by strong forces to behave like fools. Our intellectual ability is far superior to that which we often utilize.

[coberst]

Hall..

 

Thank you for that information. I think I shall develope an essay built around that quote to display the dangerous illusions that result from a sound bite/bumper sticker society.

[CraigD]

Do you think that the techniques of normal science are directly applicable for solving the problems of society?

In principle, yes. In practice at present time, no – at least not comprehensively, in the same sense that they are applicable to, for example, solving problems of orbital mechanics.

 

Scientific techniques have been and continue to be applied to social problems. Legends of scientist/sages assisting ancient rulers with problems related to resource management and planning are common. In 1947, the new mathematical technique of linear programming was applied to the problem of preventing the starvation of the residents of post-WWII Berlin, finding a solution within 1% of optimal, saving many lives. Currently, scientific techniques are applied to problems in healthcare to good effect, preventing many untimely deaths.

 

What many mean when they ask a question like “are the techniques of normal science directly applicable for solving the problems of society?” is, to put it in my own words, “can scientific formalism solve nearly all of humanity’s problems near-optimally?” I believe the answer to this question is “yes”, but that such a solution would require a model of individual and collective human motivation and behavior much more advanced than any currently existing – what modelers commonly call an agent model. I’m guardedly optimistic that such an technique can be developed within the next 50 years.

[hallenrm]

I would tend to agree with CraigD opinion posted above. In fact, I would further contend that this is a classical example that illustrates the limitations of scientific knowledge at any point of time.

 

I would quote the lines from my favorite poem, by Robert Frost, titled Stopping by Woods on a Snowy Evening

 

Woods are lovely dark and deep,

but I have promises to keep

and miles to go, before I sleep.

[coberst]

Myquestion was: "Do you think that the techniques of normal science are directly applicable for solving the problems of society?"

 

My question was worded rather clumsily. There are at least two general types of problems that society must deal with. One as you say normal science can handle quite well. When the goal is clear and we need only concern our self with the means to accomplish that goal and we are dealing with objective matters only, then normal science is very well qualified to solve such problems.

 

We live in two very different worlds; a world of technical and technological order and clarity, and a world of personal and social disorder and confusion. We are increasingly able to solve problems in one domain and increasingly endangered by our inability to solve problems in the other.

 

Normal science is successful primarily because it is a domain of knowledge controlled by paradigms. The paradigm defines the standards, principles and methods of the discipline. It is not apparent to the laity but science moves forward in small incremental steps. Science seldom seeks and almost never produces major novelties.

 

Science solves puzzles. The logic of the paradigm insulates the professional group from problems that are unsolvable by that paradigm. One reason that science progresses so rapidly and with such assurance is because the logic of that paradigm allows the practitioners to work on problems that only their lack of ingenuity will keep them from solving.

 

Science uses instrumental rationality to solve puzzles. Instrumental rationality is a systematic process for reflecting upon the best action to take to reach an established end. The obvious question becomes ‘what mode of rationality is available for determining ends?’ Instrumental rationality appears to be of little use in determining such matters as “good” and “right”.

 

There is a striking difference between the logic of technical problems and that of dialectical problems. The principles, methods and standards for dealing with technical problems and problems of “real life” are as different as night and day. Real life problems cannot be solved using deductive and inductive reasoning.

 

Dialectical reasoning requires the ability to slip quickly between contradictory lines of reasoning. One needs skill to develop a synthesis of one point of view with another. Where technical matters are generally confined to only one well understood frame of reference real life problems become multi-dimensional totalities.

When we think dialectically we are guided by principles not by procedures. Real life problems span multiple categories and academic disciplines. We need point-counter-point argumentation, we need emancipatory reasoning to resolve dialectical problems. We need critical thinking skills and attitudes to resolve real life problems.

 

How to build the atomic bomb is a technical problem. Whether to build the bomb or what to do with it after it is built is a real life problem.

 

The critically self-conscious learner is a person who has developed a passion for rational solutions to problematic ends. Instrumental rationality is designed to solve problems of means when the end is clear. Normal science, the science of means, is guided and controlled by paradigms. Paradigms are single dimensional structures that insure that means solutions do not stray from the straight and narrow.

 

Such systems are designed for puzzle solutions that are perfectly acceptable for single dimensional problems. The problematic situation that presents itself is just how to approach the determination of ends when such matters are mostly multi-dimensional without paradigms and generally demanding the agreement of two or more reflective agents. There are no paradigms for multi-dimensional problems.

 

Instrumental rationality is not a method suitable for developing ends. Dialectical rationality is the only mode of reasoning suitable for arriving at satisfactory ends.

 

In a criminal jury trial each juror ideally begins hearing the case as a mental blank slate. The witnesses engage in a controlled and guided dialogue wherein each witness communicates to the jury their particular truth regarding the matter under consideration. Each juror modifies his or her blank slate as the witness’s parade through; each providing his or her view of the truth. A dialogue takes place for the benefit of the juror who is not a member of the dialogue.

 

Each juror is required to reason dialectically. Dialectical reasoning is a process wherein the opinion of the juror is molded and remolded based upon the truths presented. The blank slate becomes slate A after witness A and then becomes slate A-B after witness B and then becomes slate A-B-C, etc.

 

At the end of the trial the jurors assemble in isolation to determine a verdict. Generally the members are polled to determine if all agree upon the truth of the case. If one or more jurors dissent from the others a new dialogue must take place. The jurors begin a dialogue in an attempt to reach a unanimous decision.

 

In this stage each juror is engaged in communication in dialogue while simultaneously each juror is engaged in a rational dialectic.

 

A jury trial might be a useful example of a problem engaged by many reflective agents with a multiplicity of frames of reference. In such a situation the jury must utilize communicative techniques to enter into a dialogue wherein there is a constant dialectic until a unanimous solution is reached or deadlock prevails.

 

Communicating by dialogue together with reasoning dialectically is a technique for attempting to solve multi-dimensional problems. Problems that are either not pattern like or that the pattern is too complex to ascertain.

 

Most problems that we face in our daily life are multi-dimensional in nature. Simple problems that occur daily in family life are examples. Each member of the family has a different point of view with differing needs and desires. Most of the problems we constantly face are not readily solved by mathematics because they are not pattern specific and are multi-dimensional.

 

Dialogue is a technique for mutual consideration of such problems wherein solutions grow in a dialectical manner. Through dialogue each individual brings his/her point of view to the fore by proposing solutions constructed around their specific view. All participants in the dialogue come at the solution from the logic of their views. The solution builds dialectically; from a thesis and a contrasting thesis, a synthesis is constructed that takes into consideration both proposals. From this synthesis, a new thesis has developed.

 

When we are dealing with single dimensional problems well circumscribed by paradigms the personal biases of the subject are of small concern. In multi-dimensional problems, without the advantage of paradigms, the biases of the problem solvers become a serious source of error. One important task of dialogue is to illuminate these prejudices. These biases may be quite subtle and often out of the consciousness of the participant holding them.

 

Dialogic, the combination of dialogue and dialectic, is the only form of rationalization available for multilogical problems. Induction and deduction are aspects of the act of dialogic but are not sufficient alone for this needed communication form of rationalization.

 

Our schools have decided that our children should learn to be critical thinkers. I agree with their judgment. This disciplined form of thought is important to each child and is vitally important to our society. I have attempted to relay to you my sense of the importance of critical thinking in the hope that you may share that judgment and lend your support to the school system in this vital matter.