Outline and critically review the principal arguments in The Kuhnian View by Haines-Young and Petch!!! Thomas Samuel Kuhn was born on July 18, 1922, in Cincinnati, Ohio, United States

To help people understand the paradigm switch Kuhn uses a 'Gestalt Diagram'. A gestalt diagram is a visual illusion in which an object is at one time seen as one thing, and at another time seen as something else. The two interpretations can not be seen at the same time but having seen both the observer can switch between them.

The Kuhnian Model has been widely accepted in geography as a way of describing developments in science along with its concepts of paradigms, normal science and periodic revolutions. Many people such as Jones (1974), Anderson and Burt (1981) and Biswas (1970) have tested weither Kuhn's views fit in with changes in the earth sciences in the period succeeding the war. Jones tested Kuhn's views against the theory of plate tectonics. Before the 1960's many people believed that the earth was stable. This was known as the 'Stabilist Paradigm'. There were many questions that arouse from this idea such as why had land bridges disappeared therefore a new paradigm was easily accepted. After the 1960's there was effidence to suggest that the world was not fixed but that plates moved. This gave rise to a new paradigm, the 'Mobilist Paradigm'. This example shows that Kuhn's ideas could be related to actual changes in the earths structure. Kuhn's views can also be related to Aristotle's idea that the universe consisted of five elements but when Biswas came up with a different idea a new paradigm began. Although Kuhn's views have been widely accepted in general terms he has been criticised for his use of the word 'Paradigm'. Sphere (1964) believes that the way Kuhn uses the word in broad general terms undermines his views. Sphere accuses Kuhn of "inflating the definition of paradigm until it becomes so vague and ambiguous that it cannot be easily withheld" ( Haines-Young et al). Skolimowski (1974) was of the idea that if Kuhn had of made his definition of 'Paradigm' more precise the Kuhnian model would not have been as popular. Kuhn himself was aware that he did not give a very precise definition of the word and therefore emphasised the meaning in the second edition of his book 'Structure of Scientific Revolutions'. This made way for his idea of the 'Disciplinary Matrix' and 'Exemplars'. Kuhn regards the disciplinary matrix as a set of shared beliefs and assumptions which account for the harmony of a scientific community. These beliefs normally come about when people go through the educational process. One example of the disciplinary matrix could be ideas on some set of concepts such as the 'Systems Theory'.

On the other hand the idea of exemplars is easier to grasp. "Exemplars are the concrete and archetypal applications of ideas expressed in the disciplinary matrix" (Haines-Young et al). One example of exemplars in geomorphologic terms could be landscape features that are seen as 'typical examples' of particular forms. Kuhn believes that the scientist learns from exposure to exemplars, how to ask appropriate questions and can come up with acceptable solutions. By replacing the first notion of a paradigm with the disciplinary matrix and exemplars the character of science can be more easily understood.

Kuhn was aware that for two opposing theories to be discussed or compared there needs to be a 'common language'. Meaning that there needs to be a neutral vocabulary. This is necessary because from one theory to another, words change their meaning. Kuhn describes theories that can not be compared as incommensurable. He believes there needs to be a rational basis for comparison between two paradigm. According to Hacking (1983) there are three main ways in which theories can be incommensurable. Firstly there is topic incommensurability. This is when two entirely different topics are being discussed. For a comparison to be made the two theories must be on the same topic. The second type is incommensurability by dissociation. This happens when a theory from the past can no longer be understood by today's generation. For people today to understand Aristotle's ideas they would have to dissociate themselves from today's way of thinking. The final type is meaning incommensurability. This is connected with the meaning of words in which any comparison between theories is attempted. This comes to the front because many believe that the meaning of scientific terms can only be understood in the context of a theory. So therefore if theories are incommensurable then there can be no rational basis for choosing between them. The choice may be down to other determining factors such as political forces. Kuhn concludes:

"As in political revolutions ....... There is no higher standard than the assent of the relevant community" (Kuhn, 1970a, pg 94)

Aine Clinton

2660043

10GGY228

Outline and Critically Review the Principal Arguments in "The Kuhnian View" by Haines-Young and Petch.

28/10/05

Bibliography

* http://plato.stanford.edu

* The Kuhnian View, Haines-Young and Petch

* The Structure of Scientific Revolutions, 1970, Kuhn, Thomas.