‘’Paradigm’’ as a central concept in Thomas Khun’s thought

Before Kuhn, historians of science and philosophers viewed the scientific enterprise as a rational endeavor in which progress and knowledge were acquired through the steady, daily, rigorous accumulation of empirical data of accredited facts and new discoveries. However, Kuhn called this traditional approach normal science and used the then obscure word paradigm to refer to the common ideas and concepts that guide members of a particular scientific field. Thus, it can be said that Kuhn is a kind of key document in both producing and preserving a profound distinction between logical empiricists and those who take the historical approach.

There are many competing things in the era before any scientific conclusions are reached. The winner of the competition wins the commitment of the scientific community and from then on becomes the basis for further research. According to Khun, paradigm is the approach that plays a role in managing the stages after consensus is reached. Paradigm can be named as the acceptances that have become the reference center of the scientific community in a certain period. Scientists aim to increase the validity and reliability of their studies based on a certain method in their studies in the fields they work. These are the ‘current paradigm’ references they are based on. Thus, the paradigm functions as a litmus paper in the scientific field. In explaining the term paradigm, Kuhn first defines two characteristics of particular achievements: first; one is unique enough to distract a permanent group of adherents from competing forms of scientific activity, and the other is open-ended enough to leave any problem for a redefined group of practitioners to solve. He referred to achievements that shared these two characteristics as ‘paradigms’, a term closely related to ‘normal science’ henceforth. In Kuhn’s view, a paradigm is not just existing theory, but the entire worldview in which it exists and all the implications that go with it. Normal science, as depicted earlier, is for Kuhn an attempt to solve a puzzle. While Paradigm assures that the puzzles it describes have solutions, this is not always the case. Sometimes puzzles cannot accept the solution within the framework (disciplinary matrix) provided by the paradigm. In his view, paradigms are necessary for scientists to define problems and choose methods in their research. Paradigm is the common acceptance of scientists in a particular discipline, a way of seeing, a problem solving tool. As long as scientists give meaning to it and fulfill these functions, the paradigm continues to exist. He first called this stage normal science, a community of researchers who share a common intellectual framework caused by inconsistencies (anomalies) between what the paradigm predicts and those revealed by observation or experiment. In this sense, it refers to the whole of understandings that are accepted without question as a process that will serve the continuation of normal science activities. There can be talk of scientific research in the absence of a paradigm, but a paradigm represents the most mature stage of a scientific process.

At this point, Kuhn abandons the traditional understanding that science is a stable continuity and talks about the instability of science and the interruption of the scientific process with the revolutions that take place. Often, anomalies are resolved either by incremental changes in the paradigm or by adding observational or experimental errors. And Kuhn argued that great changes have occurred in scientific fields, and have probably not evolved gradually from the patient and regular research of established researchers in the field. Rather, he argues that revolutions in science are the result of disruptions in intellectual systems, disruptions that occur when old methods fail to solve new problems. He calls the change in theory underlying such a revolution a paradigm shift. Because current scientific assumptions may turn into myths in the future. (Example: Newton’s Gravity — Einstein’s Relativity). According to Kuhn’s scientific research, the continuing paradigm begins to contradict the findings they produce after a certain point. Such moments of crisis prepare the necessary environment for the emergence of the new paradigm. This period of crisis is called the crisis period. And during this period, extraordinary scientific efforts and studies show themselves. The structure of scientific revolutions is the normal scientific process dominated by a particular paradigm, the crisis period; continues in the form of scientific revolution and new paradigm. In this sense, every scientific revolution and every new paradigm carries the traces of the previous paradigm. Kuhn’s concept of paradigm is central to his model of science; What was important to him was to be able to provide a source of guidance for the disciplines of science. With theoretical assumptions, it can take the form of a generally accepted view on the subject (ontology), an accepted set of standards for evaluating explanations, a metaphysical view of the world, or simply a generally accepted past scientific achievement. rules for subsequent applications. Everything in the field of scientists is being redefined and interpreted with different theoretical concepts. The new paradigm is not built directly on the past achievements of science, but rather involves the rejection of what was previously accepted. Thus, the history of science is a “discontinuous” process; are periods of cumulative and consensus-based “normal” science, alternating with periods of crisis, “revolution” and “paradigm change”. Even where competing theories have common points such as “mass” and “time”, they are defined differently, as in the paradigm shift from Newtonian mechanics to relativistic physics developed by Einstein. The result of this “difference of meaning” is that the dialogue between proponents of competing theories is cross-purposed. This is the strongest feeling that rival theories can be said to be “immeasurable”: they are mutually incomprehensible. He put the identification of diachronic transformations in scientific views and the role of social processes within the scientific community in the emergence of social processes at the center of the discussion. As a central concept in Kuhn’s thought, the influence of the term “paradigm” has greatly expanded and strengthened the anti-positivist philosophical tradition to which it belongs.

In place of conclusion

A paradigm is a particular theoretical orientation based on a particular epistemology and research methodology, reflecting a particular scientific community at a particular time in history. At the same time, the research generated from this theoretical orientation frames and guides the nature of the type of inquiry, as well as provides a fundamental basis for evaluating the results of the research generated. It is clear that Kuhn’s revolutionary impact on the sociology of science with his groundbreaking works was to overthrow logical empiricism and put the historical approach on its throne.