scholarly journals EPISTEMOLOGI THOMAS S. KUHN DAN MUNCULNYA ILMU PENGETAHUAN SOSIAL

JIPSINDO ◽  
2019 ◽  
Vol 6 (1) ◽  
pp. 25-45
Author(s):  
Sudrajat Sudrajat ◽  
Hamka Mujahid Ma'ruf ◽  
Ajat Sudrajat ◽  
Septi Nur Damayanti
Keyword(s):  
Thomas Kuhn ◽  
Normal Science

Pada fase normal science, paradigma yang mapan sudah tidak dilihat secara kritis. Paradigma tersebut sudah dianggap benar begitu saja, taken for granted. Sampai akhirnya, paradigma yang mapan ini digugat karena ada anomali dimana muncul masalah atau pertanyaan-pertanyaan yang tidak sanggup lagi dijawab oleh paradigma lama. Kemudian masuklah pada fase krisis. Pada fase krisis, paradigma lama bertarung dengan paradigma baru. Jika paradigma baru menang dan masyarakat ilmiah menyepakati kebenaran paradigma baru tersebut maka lahirlah apa yang disebut sebagai revolusi saintifik dimana paradigma lama tergeser oleh paradigma baru. Thomas Kuhn tidak melihat klaim objektivitas pengetahuan dari sisi perkembangan pengetahuan itu sendiri. Kuhn melihat objektivitas pengetahuan dan keilmuan itu sendiri di dalam perkembangan pengetahuan di dalam pertemuan antarmanusia di dalam masyarakat. Sumber pertumbuhan dan pemekaran bukan saja dari masalah-masalah internal pengetahuan, tetapi dari faktor-faktor sosial yang majemuk dan dinamis. Akibatnya, tidak ada klaim objektivitas yang bersifat tunggal (kumulatif) di dalam pengetahuan atau keilmuan. Oleh karena itu, semestinya tidak ada ilmu normal yang bertahan terus apalagi menjadi abadi karena pengetahuan atau ilmu selalu berada pada tuntutan dinamika sosial kemanusiaan yang dinamis dan majemuk. Fase normal science cepat atau lambat, akan mengalami anomali, krisis, dan akhirnya terjadilah revolusi dimana paradigma lama digantikan oleh paradigma baru.

Obvious and Improbable in Kuhnian Normal Science

2020 ◽  
Vol 57 (2) ◽  
pp. 142-161
Author(s):  
Alexander M. Dorozhkin ◽  
Anna V. Sakharova ◽  
Keyword(s):  
Early Stage ◽  
Linguistic Analysis ◽  
The State ◽  
High Rate ◽  
Thomas Kuhn ◽  
Normal Science ◽  
Complete Replacement ◽  
Language Of Science ◽  
Trading Zones ◽  
The Status

The article is devoted to the analysis of some specific characteristics of the language of normal science described by Thomas Kuhn. We would like to draw attention to two problems associated with some features of the concept of paradigms. The first problem relates to the question, how scientists belonging to one paradigm record the position of a group of scientists adhering to another paradigm. Precisely, the article examines how the problem of “synchronous fragmentation of knowledge” is solved in the language of science. The second issue concerns the age of “normal” knowledge and the question, how the anomalous content of knowledge can appear and accumulate, and what is the status of scientists developing the “anomalous” knowledge. We reveal some possible parameters by which we can determine the early stage of the functioning of normal science, the periods of its heyday and decline. In this article, we try to find an approach to these problems by examining the natural language of scientists, using techniques of content analysis, as well as complex linguistic analysis, including discursive, semantic and pragmatic components. Linguistic analysis can’t finally solve the problems of philosophical analysis of scientific knowledge, in particular, the state of the paradigm concept by Thomas Kuhn. But it helps us to identify the boundaries of paradigms, as well as the state of normal knowledge. The problem of fragmentation of knowledge by paradigms, as well as the problem of “aging” of knowledge inside a “normal science” are not directly expressed by scientists. But they can be recorded by analysis of everyday language, which often becomes entangled with the language of science. The high rate of words that semantically indicate the “obvious” knowledge in scientific texts points to a “good” state of the paradigm. And vice versa, the words denoting “improbable” indirectly indicate its crisis state or express an attitude to the knowledge belonging to a different paradigm. The analysis of the data shows that the alleged complete replacement of Kuhn's concept of a paradigm by the concept of “trading zones” by Peter Galison does not appear to be accomplished. Just as the concept of scientific paradigm did not completely replace the falsificationalism, the Galison’s “trading zones” do not fully reflect the real state of affairs in science. Therefore, the Kuhnian paradigms are recorded at the lexical level in the communication of scientists.

A New Conceptual Context for the Sacramentality of Marriage

Horizons ◽  
1995 ◽  
Vol 22 (2) ◽  
pp. 214-236
Author(s):  
Joseph Martos
Keyword(s):  
Frame Of Reference ◽  
Thomas Kuhn ◽  
Normal Science ◽  
New Paradigm ◽  
Conceptual Frame ◽  
Traditional Understanding

AbstractThe traditional understanding of the sacramentality of marriage, introduced by Augustine, systematized by the medieval scholastics, and still central to Catholic institutional thought, has in recent years been criticized as being internally incoherent and externally counterfactual. These difficulties may be perceived within the frame of reference provided by Thomas Kuhn to be anomalies such as those that can be expected to appear during a transition from normal science to a new paradigm for explaining the data once satisfactorily accounted for by that science. A new paradigm or conceptual frame of reference is proposed for the sacramentality of marriage, and evidence is presented that this new paradigm is in fact emerging in the theological literature on marriage. The reader is cautioned, however, that the emerging paradigm of marriage's sacrmentality is not what it is usually thought to be.

scholarly journals El significado de las rocas: El debate de Kuhn y Taylor sobre la base hermenéutica de la ciencia

2012 ◽  
Vol 18 (2) ◽  
Author(s):  
Leonardo Díaz
Keyword(s):  
Charles Taylor ◽  
Natural Sciences ◽  
Thomas Kuhn ◽  
Human Sciences ◽  
Normal Science ◽  
Scientific Revolutions ◽  
Pure Data ◽  
Revolutionary Science ◽  
La Salle University

RESUMENA finales de los años 80s, Thomas Kuhn y Charles Taylor fueron invitados a un debate en La Salle University. Taylor defendió que las ciencias naturales no son ciencias hermenéuticas, pues se fundamentan en datos puros, carentes de significado. Kuhn rechazó la tesis de la existencia de datos puros, sosteniendo que las ciencias naturales operan con significados y poseen una base hermenéutica. En la postura de Kuhn pueden apreciarse ambivalencias como resultado de sus viejos compromisos teóricos con el proyecto explicativo formulado en La estructura de las revoluciones científicas y como mostraré, vinculado a la existencia de una tensión entre dos perspectivas filosóficas sobre la ciencia.PALABRAS CLAVEHERMENÉUTICA, CIENCIA NORMAL, CIENCIA REVOLUCIONARIA, TENSIÓN, CIENCIAS HUMANASABSTRACTBy the end of the 1980s, Thomas Kuhn and Charles Taylor participated in a debate at La Salle University. Taylor defended that natural sciences are not hermeneutical sciences, since they are based on the pure, meaningless data. Kuhn rejected the thesis of the existence of pure data, arguing that natural sciences work with meanings and have a hermeneutic foundation. Kuhn’s position presents ambivalences as a result of his former theoretical commitments with the explicative project formulated in The Structure of the Scientific Revolutions and as I will show, linked to the existence of a tension between two philosophical perspectives on science.KEYWORDSHERMENEUTICS, NORMAL SCIENCE, REVOLUTIONARY SCIENCE, TENSION, HUMAN SCIENCES

scholarly journals Relevansi Pemikiran Thomas Khun Terhadap Penerapan Ijma’

Aqlania ◽  
2020 ◽  
Vol 11 (1) ◽  
pp. 74
Author(s):  
Mamnunah Mamnunah ◽  
Sufyan Sauri
Keyword(s):  
Scientific Revolution ◽  
Daily Life ◽  
Thomas Kuhn ◽  
Normal Science ◽  
New Paradigm ◽  
New Knowledge ◽  
Islamic Science

Thomas Khun's famous thought is about the paradigm, in which Khun states that all knowledge possessed by a person must be based on a paradigm that is believed. If there is a new thing that cannot be solved by this paradigm, then it happens that Thomas Khun is called the scientific revolution. Thomas Khun's thoughts on the Ilmiyah Revolution have concepts and characteristics of thinking and new philosophical models that lead to new knowledge. It is in this phase that Thomas Kuhn calls it the historical phase of the birth of new knowledge, which starts with normal science, then anomalies and crises occur, after which a scientific revolution emerges as a form of birth of new knowledge. If examined more deeply, then Thomas Kuhn's thought has relevance to Islamic science, especially in the application of sources of Islamic laws, namely the application of ijma ', which is the paradigm that is possessed by Muslims in carrying out amaliyah and ubudiyah certainly based on the Qur'an and hadith , this is what Kuhn called normal science. However, when there are problems in daily life in matters of ubudiyah and amaliyah for Muslims who do not have texts or texts in the Koran and hadiths then from here anomaly and crisis will occur which will result in much debate among the scholars before obtaining a solution from the problems faced by Muslims, and then they do ijma 'which after the ijma results' have been obtained then there is the so-called scientific revolution, which reflects the shift of the paradigm of the Muslims from the old to the new paradigm, in the sense of where the Muslims in run amaliyah ubudiyah if there is no text or text in the alqu'an they will look for it in ijma 'ulama that has been done.

scholarly journals Thomas Kuhn dan Teori Hubungan Internasional: Realisme sebagai Paradigma

2017 ◽  
Vol 1 (2) ◽  
pp. 107
Author(s):  
Azwar Asrudin
Keyword(s):  
International Relations ◽  
Paradigm Shift ◽  
International Relations Theory ◽  
Thomas Kuhn ◽  
Normal Science ◽  
Security Cooperation ◽  
International Anarchy

This writing is the writer’s objections against Peter Van Ness’ claim on realist paradigm. In reference to Thomas Kuhn’s paradigm shift, Van Ness argued that realism, as what Kuhn would call “normal science” in international relations theory, is in a crisis because of its inability to explain some anomalies. According to Van Ness, rampant number of states doing security cooperation is enough to call realism is in a crisis as a paradigm. Through several cases on international anarchy, the writer argues that realism is still relevant and worthy to be called a paradigm in Kuhnian category.

scholarly journals Epistemologi Saintifik Thomas S. Kuhn terhadap Munculnya Ilmu Pengetahuan Sosial

2019 ◽  
Vol 1 (3) ◽  
pp. 120
Author(s):  
Septi Nur Damayanti
Keyword(s):  
Thomas Kuhn ◽  
Normal Science

Pada fase normal science, paradigma yang mapan sudah tidak dilihat secara kritis. Paradigma tersebut sudah dianggap benar begitu saja, taken for granted. Sampai akhirnya, paradigma yang mapan ini digugat karena ada anomali dimana muncul masalah atau pertanyaan-pertanyaan yang tidak sanggup lagi dijawab oleh paradigma lama. Kamudian masuklah pada fase krisis. Pada fase krisis, paradigma lama bertarung dengan paradigma baru. Jika paradigma baru menang dan masyarakat ilmiah menyepakati kebenaran paradigma baru tersebut maka lahirlah apa yang disebut sebagai revolusi saintifik dimana paradigma lama tergeser oleh paradigma baru. Thomas Kuhn tidak melihat klaim objektivitas pengetahuan dari sisi perkembangan pengetahuan itu sendiri. Kuhn melihat objektivitas pengetahuan dan keilmuan itu sendiri di dalam perkembangan pengetahuan di dalam pertemuan antarmanusia di dalam masyarakat. Sumber pertumbuhan dan pemekaran bukan saja dari masalah-masalah internal pengetahuan, tetapi dari faktor-faktor sosial yang majemuk dan dinamis. Akibatnya, tidak ada klaim objektivitas yang bersifat tunggal (kumulatif) di dalam pengetahuan atau keilmuan. Oleh karena itu, semestinya tidak ada ilmu normal yang bertahan terus apalagi menjadi abadi karena pengetahuan atau ilmu selalu berada pada tuntutan dinamika sosial kemanusiaan yang dinamis dan majemuk. Fase normal science cepat atau lambat, akan mengalami anomali, krisis, dan akhirnya terjadilah revolusi dimana paradigma lama digantikan oleh paradigma baru.

Tradition and Discontinuity: Interrogating the Notions of Normal Science and Revolution in Thomas Kuhn

2020 ◽  
Vol 4 (1) ◽  
pp. 171
Author(s):  
Michael Sunday Sasa
Keyword(s):  
History Of Science ◽  
Language Game ◽  
Thomas Kuhn ◽  
Normal Science ◽  
Paradigm Shifts ◽  
Human Flourishing ◽  
Human Interest ◽  
Form Of Life ◽  
Fundamental Point ◽  
History Of

The present paper is a representation of a systematic inquiry as well as an application of the main thrust in Thomas Kuhn’s discourse concerning the growth of human knowledge represented in philosophy of science. The paper begins by stating the points of tradition and normal science in Thomas Kuhn’s analysis of the growth of scientific knowledge. This is juxtaposed with the notions of discontinuity and revolution. A fundamental point in the paper is that Thomas Kuhn presents an analysis that bring to the fore a tradition of continuous discontinuity. This he expounded in the philosophy of paradigm shifts brought about by crisis and revolution, resulting in the overthrow of an existing hegemony and the birth of a new one. In all, Thomas Kuhn believes that science does not represent a paradigm of rationality because going through the history of science; we are not able to discover a particular paradigm or rationality that runs through the entirety of the history of science. If anything at all, science is made up of different paradigms of rationality, models of knowledge systems of method such that, the change from one scientific epoch to another cannot be a lineal rational or methodic one. Rather, it is a shift from one model to an opposing one; what he calls a gestalt switch which is a change in ‘form of life’, ‘language game’ or ‘conceptual scheme’. The paper however, presents the thesis that even if there is no outstanding form of rationality the history of science is seen to contain a certain continuous tradition. This has to do with the aim of any science. And so, be it the science of Ptolemy, Copernicus or Galileo, Einstein or Newton, there is the aim of human interest transcending all the epochs. To this extent, the paper argues a rationality of any scientific epoch or paradigm must derive from the quality of human interest it potent. Any science be it religion, mysticism or positivism that does not aim at human flourishing is not rational. The paper employs the method of text-analysis, conceptual clarification, constructive criticism and reconstructivism to bring forth its central argument.   

Creating Political Reality

1970 ◽  
Vol 64 (4) ◽  
pp. 1088-1098 ◽  
Author(s):  
Henry S. Kariel
Keyword(s):  
Reward System ◽  
Empirical Science ◽  
Thomas Kuhn ◽  
Normal Science ◽  
Editorial Boards ◽  
Political Reality ◽  
Political Analysis ◽  
Strenuous Activity ◽  
Look Back ◽  
Analytical Tools

“Suit yourself.”—American colloquialismCurrently fashionable modes of political analysis deserve acclaim today for at least two reasons: they provide opportunities for participating in a pleasurable if strenuous activity (regardless of the value of the end results) and they effectively come to terms with the surface facts of political reality. Our posterity, too, may find it easy to esteem the contemporary products of the profession of political science should it ever look back and see how an affection for craftsmanship is combined with the ability to please. Moreover, the reward system of the profession should appear as having been nicely designed to promote the present display of talent, ingenuity, variety, and success. There is evidence, in any case, that the prevailing inclination to work hard and to develop ever more powerful analytical tools is welcomed and reinforced within the discipline. All would seem to be well.Yet doubts continue to be expressed today even by those who govern the profession and engage in what Thomas Kuhn has called normal science. Partially, there is a petulant resentment among older practitioners, scholars who are made fretful and irritable by the entrepreneurial opportunism of the nouveau riche, by the feeling that mindless industriousness rather than scholarly contemplation is now rewarded by tenure as well as by space in journals, time on panels, positions on editorial boards, and cash for projects. It does not pain me, however, to disregard the indictment that comes from this source—not because I suspect its patrician origins but because I believe it is blind to the underlying impulse of empiricism, because it ignores the subversive, liberating thrust of empirical science.

Turning Back to Kuhn

2020 ◽  
Vol 57 (1) ◽  
pp. 6-19
Author(s):  
Ilya T. Kasavin ◽  
Vladimir N. Porus ◽  
Keyword(s):  
History Of Science ◽  
Expert Knowledge ◽  
Thomas Kuhn ◽  
Normal Science ◽  
Central Concept ◽  
History Of ◽  
Professional Science ◽  
Definition Of ◽  
Intellectual Power ◽  
Revolutionary Science

The article examines the problem of interpreting normal and revolutionary science in the concept of Thomas Kuhn. It is shown that the “normal science” is the central concept of the Kuhn’s history of science, designed in accordance with the normative definition of science adopted by him. Such a story serves an internal purpose – to justify the special epistemical status of expert knowledge. But there is also an external goal – to establish professional science as an institution with special epistemological status and social function, which is situated in a center of intellectual power and property. Historians are those who are forced to constantly rewrite history – either following the methodology of “rational reconstruction” or responding to the challenges of their time. To be a “conservative” or a “revolutionary” in the history of science is a choice made not only for philosophical reasons, but also under the influence of the general socio-cultural situation of the epoch.

Two Myths: Corporate Personality and Language/Mentality Determinism

1990 ◽  
Vol 43 (3) ◽  
pp. 289-307 ◽  
Author(s):  
Stanley E. Porter
Keyword(s):  
Paradigm Shift ◽  
Scientific Community ◽  
Good Evidence ◽  
Biblical Studies ◽  
Thomas Kuhn ◽  
Normal Science ◽  
New Model ◽  
Scientific Revolutions ◽  
Structure Of Scientific Revolutions ◽  
Corporate Personality

Certain myths are often perpetuated in a discipline, myths which upon later reflection are seen to be what they in fact are: unhelpful, deceptive or simply wrong. Often these myths are perpetuated in spite of good evidence to the contrary. This tendency is not unique to Biblical studies but is a pattern that is found in a range of disciplines. Thomas Kuhn, in The Structure of Scientific Revolutions, addresses this tendency in the so-called hard sciences. He does not use the term myth but rather speaks of the presuppositions of normal science, the scientific paradigm which controls the scientific community of a given time. But as is so often the case, growing evidence mounts that the model is unsatisfactory, that it fails in significant ways to explain evidence which is increasingly seen to be important. The evidence mounts, until a paradigm shift occurs, when the significant or major practitioners of a discipline realise that a new model must be invoked to explain the data at hand.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document