Nov 9th, 2015

Nelly Wang
Question 3

The intent behind Kuhns history is not to be a mechanism for training normal
scientists to be good at what they do, per se, but serves as a sociological analysis in
attempt to explain the process of scientific development historically and to think about
why a particular history of science is taught through current science education (7). As a
result, Kuhn points out the insufficiency of science textbooks in trying to piece together a
story of science. Therefore, it is important to understand the perspective that Kuhn is
speaking from in order to argue that teaching his history of science would help enlighten
scientists on their endeavour to solve more puzzles.
First of all, the ways in which the science textbooks present a picture of the history of
science is not inaccurate in the strictest sense, as it is not a complete fictional narrative
but one that is devoid of many historical elements and misconstrues certain historical
details. The importance of such a particular account of science, especially of that seen in
science textbooks, relates to the construction and recognition of a set of paradigms, which
once accepted and applied by the scientific community, needs to be properly taught in a
manner that conforms to the current scientific tradition (135). Moreover, the manner in
which science is presented in contemporary education highlights prominent theories and
problems that arise from the paradigm using a series of predetermined scientific
terminology (135). It is especially critical for the community, then, to generate a story of
progress that encompasses the agreed-upon paradigms of the discipline, including a story
of its developmental progress, to serve a pedagogical purpose (135). Particularly,
textbooks use the paradigmatic formula to motivate the resolution of current issues in
science and simultaneously help guide scientific work towards a general direction (135-

136). Subsequently, any detail that is deemed irrelevant is left out of the storyline since it
does not contribute in any significant manner to scientific development and may actually
serve to confuse and deflect scientists from the matters at hand (136). Moreover, it is
counterintuitive to include facts of scientific development that may point out significant
human error, or deviate from the existing developmental trajectory of science as
determined by the community (136).
Ultimately, this approach, however, does come with its own downside in that certain
definitions put forth by previous scientists, following the revolution of every paradigm,
gets misconstrued, misattributed, and misunderstood, which sometimes causes those
definitions to end up loosing its intended meaning (140). In turn, a different
understanding of the notion is ascribed that strips the original content of its context and
end up the complete opposite of what it was intended, or absent of what the scientist had
claimed it to be (140). Additionally, the notion that science textbooks modifies the tales
of significant and unprecedented scientific achievements that is utilized in the
contemporary paradigm in order to present science in a linear fashion under the
presumption that preceding generations were also working with the same goals and under
similar mindsets as scientists are today, which, arguably, makes it easier to construct and
understand a history of science that conforms to the way we think about scientific
progress now (136).
Another issue that arises from the approach of the modern scientific tradition is the
lack of attention pedagogues give to the social factors and the approaches that the past
generations experienced while conducting their own science (139). In fact it was in a
different place, and time with its own distinctive set of paradigms, and objectives that

past scientists conducted their experiments under (139). Many tend to forget that
historical factors make a difference on the type of results that are derived from the
experiments that were conducted, including the interpretation of those results, which
occurred due to a different set of beliefs and understanding of the world than that of the
current scientific paradigm (139).
On the other hand, knowing a more complete and varied picture of the history of
science could help scientists to make more sense of the story and process of science.
Since normal scientists today are, similarly, attempting to understand and explain the
world around us just as our predecessors, who have helped construct and contribute to the
current paradigm, have also done. Therefore, a more inclusive version of the tale should
be imparted to whom it matters the most, the scientists.
While Kuhns history may not be especially helpful in scientific endeavours, and
according to him paradigm shifts will happen inevitably, as the old paradigm will reach a
precipice on top of which it is unable to come down from, resulting in the emergence of a
new paradigm, which scientists will tend to believe to be the one formula that resolves all
the inherited puzzles from past paradigms (150-151). It is nevertheless an important part
of human development that an accurate picture of historical change in the sciences is
presented to those conducting research because it is important for scientists to
acknowledge, as Kuhn pointed out, that the launch of a paradigm shift often times rely on
a bit of faith, and not merely what is based on factual evidence, although given enough
time and effort to work on it, scientists could potentially make significant progress
towards a new paradigm that bears more fruit than the previous one (156). Particularly, as
scientists are mostly trained in a very specific manner, with skills targeted to address the

paradigmatic puzzles that can be solved by their rigid training (163). When the current
paradigm fails to resolve all the necessary puzzles, scientists are less adapt at seeking
new paradigms because of their tendency to conform to the preconceived notions (163).
By acknowledging Kuhns history as part of the scientific pedagogy, scientists may be
more inclined to recognize the fact that scientific revolutions are a necessary aspect of
science, and instead of clinging on to old traditions, under the right circumstances it is an
improvement on the scientific tradition for scientists to be better equipped to cope with
the potential revolution of the paradigmatic nature (163).