The structure of scientific revolutions
Thomas Kuhn in “The Structure of Scientific Revolutions” came up with a fundamental concept in the life of sciences. The system that Kuhn’s created was on the approach in resolving the normal problems versus how the new shift can help to save a researcher’s life. This is evident in the time of the changes in paradigm. Paradigms help scientific communities to formulate questions and select the methods of examining the questions as well as in defining the key areas. Otherwise, "when a paradigm is not available or some cases the candidates of paradigm are not present, all the specifics inclined to the development of a given science are likely to portray some relevance." A paradigm is necessary for scientific study since natural history cannot be assigned meaning without at least some implicit body of interrelated theoretical and process belief that that does not hinder selection, evaluation as well as a critical analysis.” Paradigms act as maps that guide on the approach to problems and means through which issues may be brought to a conclusion, thus, they are regarded as guides to normal sciences.
A paradigm change is like a gestalt shift or perceptual transformation, where scientists begin to see the world differently and see new things when looking at old objects or look at the relevant things from different perspectives. From the information above, it is worth noting that the paradigm is an essential step to social and human research in a particular era. Otherwise, the historian has considered Kuhn’s notion by applying the little investment in the idea of cumulativeness of paradigm ideas as they can see their disciplines evolve from one paradigm to another, but the earlier disciplinary pattern is not overruled as set aside. Thus, the historians are encouraged to employ Kuhn’s idea in their disciplines; however, it could be drawing our attention towards observing “paradigm shifts” which frequently occur than Kuhn’s thought in natural sciences which they could be immaterial. However, as far as paradigm shifts in sciences do not happen within two or three decades as compared with historic paradigm shifts from the 1960s. Kuhn’s model is still viable in a case where it is employed in reminding us about the power of the acceptable instances which are profound in asking questions, seeking for responses and, in determining what constitutes the relevant field of information. It is interesting to note that the 1970s paradigm changes in Soviet history were characterized by claiming for the history of questioning which was a preserve for the elites in the past. Another critical element of paradigm change is a worthy story of revolutionary perspectives within the subject, which has virtually no relationship with media and public opinion in addressing the topic which had reliable connections with whatever was happening contemporaneously.
This book is one of the core readings in the T&T program comprehensive examination. In my opinion, since we as the interdisciplinary filed the students in the T&T program are trained to critique, invent, and apply information practices revolving around art, media, history, and philosophy. The author of this book presents different approaches in dealing with the research obstacles. One of the concepts in the book was “Normal Science as Puzzle-solving Research” (p.35). Research essentially is the fundamental skill for graduate students. The members of the faculty handling the program are concerned about helping the learner in acquiring more scholarly knowledge. Therefore, it was in my assumption that this book as part of the core list would be essential in developing critical thinking skills in solving problems. I can recall when we first discussed Kuhn's chapters in the introduction class; students were airing various views on how we could apply the paradigm in humanity researches but end up developing divergent views.
Form the social media perspective; my focus is on how this pattern may be useful in studying society. Apparently, there are different unforeseen challenges in the social media platforms and in many cases have been revealed by the new generation. Kuhn’s notion has been challenged by different theories as put forth by individuals with social science expertise. The theorists claim that we cannot confirm every theory in human experiments. However, they could use some of the paradigm patterns in solving the puzzles (Kitchen, 2014). By focusing on cases of ephemeral platforms in social media including Snap chat which is a social networking application providing a platform for people to share pictures, videos, texts, images, and drawings in real time (Vaterlaus, Barnett, Roche, & Young, 2016). When the information is unavailable, we cannot answer questions, and the whole study might be invalidated.
My question is; as social sciences and humanities scholars, can we develop a new paradigm which can blend perfectly with the social problems?
References
Bird, A. (2012). The structure of scientific revolutions and its significance: An essay review of the fiftieth anniversary edition. The British Journal for the Philosophy of Science, 63(4), 859-883.
Fitzpatrick, S. (2007). Revisionism in Soviet history. History and Theory, 46(4), 77-91.
Kitchin, R. (2014). Big Data, new epistemologies, and paradigm shifts. Big data & society, 1(1), 2053951714528481.
Kuhn, T. S. (2012). The structure of scientific revolutions. University of Chicago Press.
Vaterlaus, J. M., Barnett, K., Roche, C., & Young, J. A. (2016). “Snapchat is more personal”: An exploratory study on Snapchat behaviors and young adult interpersonal relationships. Computers in Human Behavior, 62, 594-601.