Perhaps the origin of a geology with dogmas lies in the lack of clarification about how scientific theories are born, how they develop and how they enter into crisis, and, above all, what objective value they have.
Theories as structures
Among all the scientific theories as complex structures of a certain type that have received much attention in recent years is that developed by the physicist and historian Thomas Kuhn, whose first version appeared in his work "The structure of scientific revolutions", which was published initially in 1962.
Thomas S. Kuhn was the first to study in detail the structure of scientific revolutions, thereby introducing a kind of New Philosophy of Science, which reflects not only the logical problematic, but also the historical problematic of the scientific process.
Paradigms
Paradigms, as historical formulations, have an interpretive approach to reality according to the level of knowledge and the conception of the world.
Kuhn's thesis dismantles the claims of absoluteness of any scientific theory: decidedly new theories are not born by verification or falsification, but by substitution of the explanatory model (paradigm) previously in force by a new one.
Scientific advance is due to this process in the natural sciences, to this true paradigm shift, often accompanied by strong controversy.
Kuhn's thesis supposes a fundamental change in the absolute claim of the theories on Earth Sciences, the destruction of dogmas, and consequently a different, historical and critical way of guiding teaching.
Kuhn's picture of how a science progresses can be summarized using the following open scheme:
The disorganized and diverse activity that precedes the formation of a science is finally structured and directed when a scientific community adheres to a single paradigm. A paradigm is constituted by the general theoretical assumptions, the laws and the techniques for their application adopted by the members of a given scientific community. Those who work within a paradigm, be it Newtonian mechanics, wave optics, analytical chemistry, or whatever else, practice what Kuhn calls normal science.
Normal science will articulate and develop the paradigm in its attempt to explain and accommodate the behavior of some important aspects of the real world, as revealed through the results of experimentation. In doing so they will inevitably experience difficulties and come across seeming falsifications.
If difficulties of this sort get out of hand, a state of crisis develops. The crisis is resolved when a completely new paradigm emerges that gains the adherence of an increasing number of scientists, until finally the original paradigm is abandoned, beset by problems. Discontinuous change constitutes a scientific revolution. The new paradigm, full of promise and not grouped by seemingly insurmountable difficulties, then guides the new normal scientific activity until it runs into serious problems and a new crisis appears followed by a new revolution.
Paradigms and normal science
A mature science is governed by a single paradigm. The paradigm establishes the necessary norms to legitimize the work within the governing science. Coordinates and directs the "problem solving" activity carried out by the normal scientists working within it.
The characteristic that distinguishes science from non-science is, according to Kuhn, the existence of a paradigm capable of supporting a tradition of normal science. Newtonian mechanics, wave optics and classical electromagnetism were and perhaps still are paradigms and are described as sciences. Much of modern sociology lacks a paradigm and consequently does not qualify as science.
Scientific theories are accepted, according to the theory of paradigms, not because of the possibility of prediction that they have about specific problems, but rather that it is the belief that will dominate the scientific mentality.
Normal science involves detailed attempts to articulate a paradigm in order to better match it with nature. A paradigm will always be imprecise and open enough to allow such things to be done. Kuhn describes normal science as a problem-solving activity governed by the rules of a paradigm. The problems will be both theoretical and experimental in nature.
Normal science must presuppose that a paradigm provides the adequate means of solving the problems posed in it. A failure to solve a problem is considered to be a failure of the scientist, rather than a failure of the paradigm. Problems that are reluctant to be solved are considered as anomalies, rather than as falsifications of a paradigm. Kuhn recognizes that all paradigms will contain some anomalies.
A normal scientist should not criticize the paradigm in which he works. Only in this way is he able to focus his efforts on the detailed articulation of the paradigm and do the work necessary to explore nature in depth. What distinguishes normal, mature science from the relatively disorganized activity of immature pre-science is the lack of fundamental disagreement. According to Kuhn, pre-science is characterized by total disagreement and constant debate on the fundamentals so that it is impossible to tackle detailed work.
There will be almost as many theories as there are workers in the field, and each theorist will be forced to start over and justify his or her own approach. Kuhn offers optics before Newton as an example. There were many theories about the nature of light from ancient times to Newton. No general agreement was reached, nor did a detailed, generally accepted theory emerge before Newton proposed and defended his theory of particles. Rival theorists of the pre-scientific period disagreed not only on their theoretical assumptions, but also on the kinds of observational phenomena important to their theories.
All the epistemological development that precedes very strongly contrasts with the normal practice of science teaching at all levels of learning, we ourselves have been formed in a closed and dogmatic paradigm, which believed to possess the real and absolute essence of nature.
For this reason, it is difficult for us to communicate in teaching the epistemological contents of a science that is not a copy of reality, but rather an empirical approach assumed at a certain historical moment by the community of scientists and that explains certain enigmas.
Ultimately, Kuhn's theory is relativistic, since the truth for him is not in any scientific practice. Each theory, by providing its own logical schemes for discussion with another, prevents, according to Kuhn, the knowledge of which is the correct theory.
Bibliography:
Kuhn Thomas. "The structures of the scientific revolution". Editorial Fund for economic culture. Mexico. 1962. SEQUEIROS, San Román Leandro.
"The method of Kuhn's paradigms". Zaragoza's University. SOURCES, Marcelo.
"Dialectical Materialism and Kuhn's Paradigms". nineteen ninety six.
