1. Phil 3318: Philosophy of Science Kuhn-ian Revolutions

2. ‘Real’ Revolutions as metaphor. Scientific Revolutions are those ‘non- cumulative developmental episodes in which an older paradigm is replaced in whole or in part by an incompatible one’ (92)

3. Analogical points: 1.Revolutions are inagurated by a ‘growing sense, often restricted to a segment of the political community, that existing institutions have ceased to adequately meet the problems posed by an environment that they have in part created’ (92)

4. 2.(although Kuhn doesn’t number it): Revolutions often seem revolutionary only to those whose paradigms are affected to them.

5. 3. (numbered 2) Success of a revolution necessitates, in part, the ‘relinquishment of one set of institutions in favor of another, an in the interim, society is not governed by institutions at all.’

6. Conclusion: Well, that seems to be point (3). : –During revolutions, society is devided into competing camps or parties – one seeking to defend the old, others seeking to replace it with new. –(There may be competing new camps as well) –Once that kind of polarization occurs, political recourse fails.

7. The parties are fighting over the legitimacy of institutions by which political decisions can be made – for that very reason, there is no political mechanism for adjudicating between the parties. So, the parties must ‘take to the streets’ – appeal to something other than political will (such as God, history, etc) or resort to force.

8. The success of the winner is determined not by political institutions, but by extrapolitical institutions – by the very fact that they replace those institutions by which they legitimize themselves.

9. Therefore, by analogy… Scientific revolutions gain legitimacy not by factors internal to science, but by extra-scientific methods, such as social factors. And this is precisely because the issue at stake is the legitimacy of factors internal to science.

10. Revolutions as Gestalt-switch Kuhn argues from history (Discovery of Uranus, electrostatic repulsion, Laviosier’s O2 v. Priestley’s dephlogisticated air, etc…) that scientific revolutions shift perception much like the shift in perception of anomalous playing cards, the duck-rabbit or the Necker cube. Well, let’s look at the Examples…Examples

11. How revolutions morph into normal science Authority! –As a paradigmatic case is accepted, it is taught to future scientists as if it had always been the case. There is little or no acknowledgement of the previously existing paradigm, or the crisis that sparked the paradigm shift in the first place. –Anyone taught about pre-plate tectonic geology lately?

12. Plate tectonics was proposed by Alfred Wegener in 1912.Plate tectonics –Evidence: ‘Fit’ of the E coastline of S. America with W. coastline of Africa. Similar plant & animal fossils found on these two coasts Other ‘unusual’ geological structures found in both places. –Mechanism: tidal pressure, centrifugal force.

13. Why not? 1.Forces too weak 2.Forces would destroy, not maintain, coastline shapes via erosion 3.Ocean floor would rip apart continents. (Harold Jeffereys)

14. Evidence in support 1947: sediment on the Atlantic floor was less than predicted if floor was 4 bill years old (no continental movement). 1950’s: magnetic ‘striping’ of rocks in middle of Atlantic crest. (suggested movement, but also expansion of globe) 1960’s: Evidence from earthquake analysis of the Pacific that earth was ‘being sucked down’, at the same rate as it was ‘bubbling up’ in the Atlantic.

15. Revolution 1975-1978: mechanism of ‘floating continents’ proposed by Hess and Dietz. –Consistent (based upon) convection theory of physics [exemplifying interdisciplinary collaboration] –Suggested vast new research projects –Explained earthquakes and volcanoes in ‘ring of fire’. –Explained ‘island arcs’ and mid-oceanic ridges.