MPJ5231 Nature of Science

Bachelor/ Diploma in Technology Level 5

Dept. of Mathematics & Philosophy of Engineering
Open University of Sri Lanka
Academic Year 2014/15
Assignment No: 02

Due Date: 18.02.2015

Answer all the questions

1 (i). Describe the changes taking place in the life of every major science when it passes
through from the pre-paradigmatic
paradigmatic stage to the paradigmatic
paradigmatic stage, according to Thomas
Kuhn.
(ii). Explain briefly the role played by the scientific community in bri
bringing
nging forth a revolution
in science according to Thomas Kuhn.
(iii). Read the following passage and answer the question given below.
Feyerabends conception of incommensurability stems from the theory dependence of
observation. The meanings and interpretations of concepts and the observation statements
that employ them will depend on the theoretica
theoreticall context in which they occur. In some
cases the fundamental principles of two rival theories may be so radically different that it
is not possible evenn to formulate the basic concepts of one theory in terms of the other
with the consequence that the two rivals do not sha
share
re any observation statements. In such
cases it is not possible to logically deduce some of the consequences of one theory from
the tenets of its rival for the purpose of comparison. The two theories
ories will be
incommensurable. One of Feyerabends examples of incommensurability is the
relationship between classical mechanics and relativity theory.
Explain briefly how Feyerabend describes the incommensurability of two rival theories
according to the above passage.
2. Read the following passage, and answer the questions given below.
The process of normal science, that of articulations and appl
application
ication of the paradigm,
paradig is more
or less mechanical. But despite being mechanical in nature, this process has nothing to do
with the objective, value-free
free apprehension of reality that Bacon advocated. On the country,
nature is approached in terms of catego
categories
ries and concepts supplied by the paradigm, and the
data are worked upon through the ideal problem solutions and experimental procedures
proced
afforded by the paradigm. In fact, according to the Kuhn, the paradigms so deeply condition
the scientists perceptions during his normal activity that it can be said that not only normal
norma
science, but the scientists world itself is constituted by the paradigms.
The nold of the categories supplied by paradigms on the scientists is weakened by the crisis
situations and inn these revolutionary stages of scientific activity, the scientists do behave to
some extend like innocent children free of all preconceptions
preconceptions about the world. Even for the
scientific community, acceptance of a new paradigm is hardly a mechanical process based on
certain rule and method, but involves intangible considerations like aesthetic appeal,
1

neatness, simplicity, etc. Having arrived at this completely non-Baconian understanding of

the process of scientific developments, and having seen the influence of non-mechanical
cultural and personal factors in the crucial sages of the history of science, one expects that
Kuhn would abandon the idea of western science being somehow unique, compared to other
non-western knowledge systems. One would expect him to take a relativistic position,
allowing for the possibility of different cultures arriving at different yet equally valid
knowledge systems.
However, Kuhn is quick to point out that scientific knowledge is not relative. He tells us that
even though modern science cannot be shown to be a transcript of the divine mind (God), yet
it remains the uniquely valid knowledge system available to humanity, simply because no
other culture has ever possessed any science. Only the civilizations that descended from
Hellenic Greece (Western Europe) have possessed more than the most rudimentary sciences
of other cultures. However, Kuhn does not happen to be an authority on the non-Hellenic
civilizations and their sciences.
Feyerabend complains, with justifications that defenders of science typically judge it to be
superior to other systems of knowledge without adequately investigating those other systems.
Feyerabend is not prepared to accept the necessary superiority of science over systems of
knowledge. Further, in the light of his incommensurability thesis, he rejects the idea that
there ever can be a decisive argument in favour of science over other systems of knowledge
incommensurable with it. If western science is to be compared with other systems of
knowledge, then it will be necessary to investigate the nature, aims and methods of science of
those other systems of knowledge. This will be done by the study of historical records,
textbooks, original papers, records meetings and private conversations, letters and the like.
(i). Explain briefly how Kuhn attackes (criticizes) the popular view of western science
advocated by Bacon namely, western science is an objective, value free knowledge
system utilizing the role played by the concept paradigm during the process of normal
science, according to the above passage.
(ii). Explain briefly the factors that influence the scientific community in accepting a new
paradigm during the revolving stages of scientific activity according to the above
passage.
(iii). Compare and contrast the views of Kuhn and Feyerabend regarding the uniqueness of
western science among other knowledge systems according to the above passage.
3. Read the passage given below and the Session 14 of Unit 2 (Page 101)
Reductionism and limits to science in your course material of Nature, of Science
(MPJ5231), and answer the following questions.
According to Vandana Shiva, a physicist by training, a philosopher of science and a leading
environmentalist, the nexus (bond) between modern science and violence is obvious from the
fact the 80% of all scientific research is devoted to war industry and is frankly aimed at
large-scale violence. She argues that modern science is violent even in the peaceful domains
such as health care and agriculture, where the professed objective of scientific research is no
violence but human welfare. Her argument is based on the premise that modern science is
basically reductionist. Reductionist science is also at the root of the growing ecological crisis.
2

Violence is inflicted on the subject socially through the sharp division between the expert and
non-expert. But even the expert is not spared. Fragmentation of knowledge converts the
expert into a non-knower in the fields of knowledge other than his/her specialization. In order
to prove itself superior to alternative modes of knowledge and be the only legitimate mode of
knowing, reductionist science resort to suppression ad falsification of facts and thus commits
violence against science itself. Reductionism provided the assumptions and criteria which
guide modern science. Those basic assumptions are:
(i). A system is reducible to its parts
(ii). All systems are made up of the same basic constituents which are discrete and atomistic.
(iii). All systems have the same basic processes which are mechanical
(iv). Sum total of knowledge of all the parts of a system gives knowledge of the whole
system.
(v). Experts and specialists are the only legitimate knowledge seekers and knowledge
justifiers.
All that can be granted to reductionist science is that it is an approach, a way of looking, a
mode of thought.
(i). Most people believe that the root cause of the growing ecological crisis is abusing of the
western scientific knowledge by a few selfish and power hungry scientists and
politicians. But according the above passage Vandna Shiva presents a totally different
root cause. Briefly explain this conflict of views. (i.e. Popular view Vs Vandana Shivas
view)
(ii). Explain briefly the major drawbacks of the two assumptions of Reductionism, namely
(d) & (e) of the above passage.

Answer Scripts address to:

Academic Coordinator MPJ5231
Department of Mathematics & Philosophy of Engineering
Faculty of Engineering Technology
Open University of Sri Lanka
Nawala
Nugegoda