1. When Kuhn writes: "But extraordinary problems are not to be had for the asking. They emerge only on special occasions prepared by the advance of normal research," (p. 34) is he suggesting that these "extraordinary problems" are impossible to be directly solved?

2. So what exactly is Kuhn trying to investigate? Is he trying to analyze the psychology of the process of making these scientific discoveries and show how different scientists create their assumptions?

3. Why is (does Kuhn believe) the scientific community so resistant to shifts in Normal Science? Is this a good thing? I think I know what Zenith City hometown heroes, the Richardson brothers, think about that (mp3 music file attached).

4. Are declared paradigms a good thing for the scientific community because they guide in-depth, directed research, or a bad thing because they stagnate creative thought? Why is modern science (throughout history) regarded as the truth (to most people), when it is based on evolution of theories and faith-based research and data (on the current thoughts of the time)? If science is based on theories that are held until disproven and disregarded, can anything be known for certain (or just believed until something is found contrary)?

5. Kuhn talks of both the sometimes "random" scientific discoveries and technological advances necessary to overturn contemporary theories as well as the dedicated scientists who conceive of a differing hypothesis and then systematically set out to disprove the status quo. If forced to decide, which would Kuhn say has had more of an impact on starting scientific revolutions?

6. How does this reading incorporate what we have been learning in class?

7. Couldn't the modern accumulation of facts and theories be seen as a miniature version of the development of paradigms for larger fields, except that the fields have become narrower due to a more general paradigm? Is Kuhn really fair when he says that textbooks have falsely portrayed science as a gradual accumulation of facts, because I think they are after a paradigm is established. These questions seem really convoluted, so I'll ask a simpler one: Does a paradigm exist in the domain of climate change, and how far-reaching is it?

8. What does Kuhn mean when he talks about Normal Science?

9. Kuhn writes about how a paradigm has been established when scientists agree on a particular foundation and are able to use this foundation as a springboard to explore various subtleties, with the springboard serving as a guide. He also discusses how when an individual scientist finds information contrary to the current paradigm the criticism generally befalls the scientist, not the paradigm, so how, then, does a particular scientist's views ever shift a paradigm, as Kuhn makes clear has happened many times. Was the evidence just too irrefutable? As a side question, when does an experimental finding contrary to a paradigm lead to that paradigm's demise and the formation of a new one? How many people must buy into a new theory before it becomes a new one, or, taken from the other side, how many people must question a theory before a paradigm shift can be considered. Ok, one more question... How broad is a paradigm? Does a single paradigm cover an entire science such as chemistry or biology, and if so do slight alterations in one aspect of a science cause a total paradigm shift?

10. How does Kuhn define a paradigm? It's rather broad but I think worth a group clarification to make sure we're all on the same page. It seems kind of essential to the courses.

11. Kuhn frequently makes use of the word "esoteric." Would he argue that scientific discovery takes place in circles of informed people, and is then modified and simplified to make the data non-esoteric?

12. Is it possible for one to make their research into a paradigm rather than normal science? What is it about normal science that makes other forms of scientific revolutions necessary?

13. In what ways is a pardigm shift a tipping point? How is it different? If it is one, are the responsible scientists mavens? connectors?

14. What is "normal science", according to Kuhn? And what would make something not a normal science?

15. There was a statement in chapter 1 early on that really peaked my interest; "Observation and experience can and must drastically restrict the range of admissable scientific belief, else there would be no science."(Kuhn 4). I just thought this statement could be addressed to explain how science would cease to exist if there was no range for scientific belief.

16. Kuhn seems to regard "normal science" as of less importance than the pursuit of new paradigms in science. This could be seen as a value of theoretical over practical science. Do you beleive that Kuhn has overvalued theoretical work in
science?

17. How exactly do you define a paradigm? Also, is it possible to shift from one paradigm to another gradually, or is the change always abrupt?

18. How can a theory be widely accepted by scientists and the public as a paradigm without being able to really explain all the facts being observed? What portion of facts a theory should be able to explain in order to be accepted as a paradigm?

Back to the Chemistry Department Course Page

Back to Trish Ferrett's Homepage

Back to the Chemistry Department Homepage

This page is created and maintained by Trish Ferrett.
If you have questions or comments, please send E-mail.