Scientific Paradigms

• Kuhn


  A historian of science
• Scientific paradigms


  A framework or model in which something operates. In natural sciences it is a shared framework which defines what science is. It provides assumptions, model, methods and techniques within which members of the science community work. It tells scientists what nature is, which aspects to study, what methods to use. Paradigms are therefore a SET OF NORMS because it TELLS scientists how to think and behave.
• Kuhn argues science cannot exist without a shared paradigm. Until there is a general consensus on a single paradigm, there will only be rivals of thought and not scientific truths.
• Normal science


  Paradigm is unquestioned. Natural science obtains the known rather than uncovers the unknown. Paradigm's help scientists to puzzle solve.
• Anomalies can be found in science


  Evidence that doesn't fit what you'd expect to find
• If the anomalies mount up

  Confidence in the paradigm (framework used) is lowered
• Scientific revolution


  Scientists come up with new paradigms (FRAMEWORK/MODEL) and a scientific revolution occurs. EG. World was flat-world is round.
• TWO paradigms do not exist at the same time in the science community, one paradigm is always then taken as the correct framework/model.
• Sociology


  PRE-PARADIGMATIC and therefore PRE-SCIENTIFIC as it has many divided views and competing perspectives (structural vs action). There is NO SHARED PARADIGM (no agreed way to study society).
• Sociology can only become a science If basic disagreements WERE RESOLVED. Whether this is even possible is questionable eg. politics, regicus views etc. Even WITHIN perspectives there are disagreements (think of how many types of Serists there are).
• Postmodernists


  Would argue a paradigm is not desirable in sociology as it is like a META-NARRATIVE (dominate view on what society is like) and this will SILENCE the views of the minority and falsely impose a monopoly of truth.