Session 2.

4
How Science Progresses

What is a scientific paradigm?

The word paradigm was first used in science by the science histo-
rian, Thomas Kuhn, who used it to refer to the set of fundamental
beliefs (or premises) to which scientists subscribe and which they use as a
framework for conducting research. A scientist that belongs to a certain
branch of science is accepting a given set of paradigms. Sometimes
when a particular set of beliefs, or ways of looking at some aspect of
nature, is accepted for the first time a new paradigm is created and a
new discipline or specialisation comes into being.

Initially new concepts have to be repeatedly defined and defended as

the discipline develops its own identity. As more work is done in the
area definitions become more detailed and precise. It may reach a
point when only scientists working in that area are able to read and
understand fully, academic reports of the work. In this way, scien-
tific, and other forms of knowledge, have become sub-divided into
more and more specialisations and less available to the general
public. Once a paradigm is generally accepted, scientists can take its
premises for granted. Work is done to expand knowledge only in the
doubtful areas of the paradigm.

The field of medicine provides a good example of this. Not so long

ago if your side hurt you went to a doctor and if something such as
your appendix needed to be removed the same doctor removed it.
This is now unthinkable. You may be sent to a specialist in internal
medicine who makes a diagnosis or sends you to another doctor
who specialises in problems of the intestinal tract, a gastro-enterolo-
gist, who may pass you on to another doctor who handles specific
parts of the tract. Each specialist knows more about a smaller area
of the discipline.

57
 Scientific revolutions

One inductivist argument claims that science increases knowledge

cumulatively. A look at the history of scientific knowledge shows
that this is a false description of how science progresses. A new
theory often does not add to an old theory but shows instead that it
had been false. For example, Copernicus’ (1543) heliocentric theory
of the universe (where the Sun is taken as stationary and the Earth
orbits around it) did not add to Ptolemy’s (384 BC) theory (where
the Sun was believed to orbit the Earth). It showed that Ptolemy
was mistaken.

Why do you think

Sometimes in science we have what Kuhn terms a “scientific revolu-
Kuhn chose the word tion”. Such revolutions may depend on a new idea being accepted
“revolution” to
describe this
by some workers, or stimulated by a technological innovation. We
change? often speak separately of scientific revolutions and technological
revolutions but one is often dependent on the other.

Kuhn divided scientific activity into two parts: normal science and
extraordinary science. Normal science is research that is based on
the currently accepted paradigm. Extraordinary science, on the other
hand, takes place outside the paradigm. In the latter case, experi-
ments and observations begin to produce results that contradict
parts of the accepted paradigm. As the number of these difficulties
grows “extraordinary science” begins. When a body of data starts to
accumulate that poses major problems for a theory Kuhn’s process
of radical change may occur. A new paradigm takes over, a new
consensus begins to prevail and the revolution is underway. The
new ideas enable a range of previously puzzling phenomena to be
explained and so activities are undertaken to examine these
phenomena. We look at examples of this next.

An interesting and important point is that when results apparently

disprove the original theory many scientists resist the idea of chang-
ing the paradigm to fit the new data. Instead they try to give
reasons why the new data are unsound or use some other technique
to defend and maintain their paradigm.

58 FD12A
 CRITICAL THINKING ACTIVITY

1. Explain the meaning of the term “paradigm” in science.

2. Try to identify within a discipline with which you are

familiar a paradigm that used to be accepted and has now
been discredited.

Moving continents: rejecting and accepting theories

Scientific revolutions or “paradigm shifts” are usually not instanta-

neous; years of argument between scientists may precede the final
acceptance of the new paradigm. The acceptance of plate tectonics by
the earth sciences community is a very good recent example.

Continents were thought to be unmoving, permanent blocks,

surrounded by the oceans, without a history of change. In the eigh-
teenth century, however, it was noticed that the coasts of the conti-
nents to the West of the Atlantic (North and South America) and
the continents to the East (Africa and Europe) if brought closer,
would fit together, somewhat like the pieces of a jigsaw puzzle. Two
scientists, the German von Humboldt and the American Snider-
Pellegrini, suggested that in the past the continents on either side of
the Atlantic had been joined together and later separated by floods.

A German scientist, Alfred Wegener, then presented a more startling

hypothesis; there was once a single original continent that had sepa-
rated and drifted apart. He offered a wide variety of evidence to
support his claim but he was unable to explain how this took place.

In the northern hemisphere most scientists scorned Wegener’s idea

and did not consider much of the evidence seriously, until the late
1950s. Geophysicists also ridiculed the idea of lateral movements on
this large scale on the grounds that the earth’s crust was too rigid.
Those who rejected other evidence presented by Wegener, such as
the similarity of fossils found on distant continents, had difficulty
providing alternative explanations. (By contrast, many geologists in
the southern hemisphere had accepted the new paradigm even
before the Second World War, as in the South evidence of former
links between continents is strong).

FD12A 59
 Figure 2.2 According to the continental drift theory, the super contnent
Pangaea began to break up about 225-200 million years ago, eventually
fragmenting into the continents as we know them today.

Source: http://pubs.usgs.gov/publications/text/historical.html

The geologists needed a causal explanation. Much later in the 1960s

and 1970s, it was again the geophysicists who provided this
evidence in favour of continental drift. They developed models of
the sea floor spreading and plate tectonics that explained the great
lateral movements (see p 78 for a discussion of the use of models in
science).

60 FD12A
 It is now believed that the outer crust of the Earth or mantle is
divided into enormous sections called tectonic plates. The conti-
nents rest on different sections of these plates. It was argued that
the continents drifted apart as the sea floor spread, enlarging the
ocean basins. This movement is the result of heat rising from the
Earth’s core to the surface by convection in the mantle. This puts
pressure on the edges and other sections of the tectonic plates, grad-
ually forcing them over or under each other at their edges.

Once the idea was accepted it offered explanations for a number of

previously unexplained phenomena. The mechanism explained:

I. Continental drift
II. The coastline fit of the continents
III. The alignment of mountain ranges, especially on either side of
the Atlantic
IV. The presence of the remains of the same prehistoric reptiles in
both Brazil and South Africa
V. The distribution of fossil plants

It has also been discovered that volcanic activity is prevalent along

the plate margins. Continental drift also explains some earthquakes.
Earthquakes occur when tension built up between adjacent plates as
they move against each other, is suddenly released.

The theory of plate tectonics and continental drift fits in with a

wide range of evidence, climatic, biological as well as geological and
gives a simpler and more unifying and coherent explanation of these
developments than any previous theory. However, in terms of how
sciences develop, the important issue here is that for many years
scientists supporting the older model explained away new evidence;
many became very emotional in defending the older paradigm
within which they had carried out all their research for many years.

Species and their histories: A controversial theory

In 1859 Charles Darwin, an English scientist, published The Origin of

Species. The publication of this work started a major controversy
that continues to this day because the theories that it put forward

FD12A 61
 challenged the notion that all species on earth were created exactly
as they are now. The clergy and the general public considered
Darwin’s ideas heretical. The theory of evolution is still hotly
debated. At present there are cases before the courts in the US
asking that special creation be included on the school curriculum.

In The Origin of Species Darwin argued that present species are the
result of gradual changes over millions of years. In other words

(a) animals and plants living today are the evolved descendents or
relatives of animals and plants that lived long ago, and

(b) these animals and plants evolved or changed gradually by a

process called natural selection.

Darwin made many detailed observations of fossils (the remains of

plants and animals that lived millions of years ago) and he
compared the characteristics, of animals living in different parts of
the world. Two important observations seemed to support Darwin’s
hypotheses.

1. In the fossil records he observed changes in the characteristics of

particular groups or species and that new species emerged at
certain times that were not present before.

2. The distribution of animals living in different parts of the world

showed certain similarities.

Having made these and other observations, he proposed a mecha-

nism by which this could be explained. This he called the theory of
natural selection. The argument on which this theory rests was
presented as follows:

I. Within a particular population (members of a species living in

the same place) there are always variations or differences in
some characteristics.

II. Because of these differences, some members of the population

will be better able to survive and reproduce than others; that is
some are more successful and some less successful.

III. If the characteristics that contributed to survival and

62 FD12A
 reproduction were passed on by inheritance from parents to
offspring, more of the offspring with these characteristics will
survive and pass them on to their offspring.

IV. Gradually over many generations the entire population would

have these characteristics as the less successful members of each
generation would die out.

Evolution occurred as a result of favourable characteristics becoming

the common features of the group. As these characteristics were not
selected by anyone, Darwin called this “natural selection”.

The evidence for evolution and natural selection is largely circum-

stantial yet it remains the most compelling explanation for the vari-
ety of species found on earth today and in the past. Clearly there is
no way to test this hypothesis. The question therefore arises, can
observations and deductions alone support a hypothesis?

Natural selection was one possible mechanism of evolution, but not

the only one. To show that it was possible does not prove that it did
take place or that it was the predominant mechanism of evolution.
To support his theory of evolution, like any good scientist, Darwin
had to show that:

• Evolution offered the best explanation for a large number of

characteristics of plants and animals.
• Evolution was usually a result of natural selection and not of
other factors.

In this case, to make the necessary links with the ancestral plants
and animals, Darwin had to work back from present observations,
e.g. geographical distribution of present species or the distribution of
fossils in the rock strata. By arguing from present evidence to the
past that was unobservable, he tried to show that natural selection
provided the best explanation for his observations. (Keep this point
in mind for our next session.) He and many others have done so.

The theory of evolution by natural selection has stood the test of

time because it offers explanations that are simpler and more coher-
ent than any others so far constructed. These explanations make
sense of data from very different fields of study: biogeography,

FD12A 63
 comparative anatomy, the study of fossils, similarities in the
embryos of different species and the remains of “useless” or vestigial
organs in animals. A vast network of interconnecting explanations,
both geological and biological, can be fitted together through apply-
ing Darwin’s theory. Predictions can be made: in rock strata no
mammalian fossils should be discovered at levels below the lowest
fossils of fish with backbones, no human fossils should be found at
the same levels as dinosaur fossils, no fossil birds at levels lower
than the lowest amphibian fossils, and so on.

With the development of genetics and molecular biology, Darwinian

theory has become increasingly complex, but the basic claims to
evolution and the mechanism of natural selection remain strong.
Nevertheless, it is well to remember that like all scientific theories
and hypotheses the theory of evolution and natural selection will
remain open to challenge.

Scientific facts and changing paradigms

Scientific facts are statements made after observation. In science this often
requires the experienced use of apparatus and understanding certain
concepts. We tend to behave as if scientific facts are unchanging
truths on which all scientific knowledge is based. It is as if we
believe that these facts can be found somewhere out in nature but
this is not the case. For example, take the fact that pure water boils
at 100°C at one atmosphere pressure. How can we find that fact in
nature? Before we could make this statement, we would have to
know and understand concepts of “boiling”, “temperature”, and
“pressure” and possess and know how to use a thermometer and
have a supply of pure water.

Facts are theory-laden. Statements of fact contain the assumptions of

a particular paradigm. As shown above, when we say water boils at
a certain temperature we are accepting the truth of the related
concepts. We know about thermometers, temperature, and pressure
before we start to work. Since facts are theory-laden, they may be
changed when the associated theories and their assumptions change.
This was the case before and after Galileo revolutionised the study
of astronomy.

64 FD12A
 Facts (the ways in which we interpret what we observe) change with time.
When we observe the sun “moving” across the sky we might say
“the sun is orbiting the earth”. This statement of “fact” is consistent
with the observation and this is what was believed to be a fact in
Galileo’s day. Now we know differently and can make a different
statement of fact: “the earth is spinning on its own axis relative to a
stationary sun.”

Facts do not simply accumulate as science proceeds, instead they change

or evolve, or may disappear to be replaced by others. Perhaps when
the results of exploring space and data from telescopes such as the
Hubble telescope are collated, the paradigm within which we now
operate will change and so will the relationship between the move-
ments of the earth and sun.

The fact is that facts change. As we have seen in this session, scien-
tific knowledge progresses sometimes by small discoveries and
sometimes by radical shifts. In all cases, making careful observations
is the key. We have seen that large numbers of detailed observations
can provide enough information to form viable hypotheses that are
supported by additional observations. New theories can be proposed
by a process of deduction. When these theories allow prediction of a
wide range of phenomena they carry as much weight and are as
influential as theories arrived at by experimental investigation.
Perhaps science is not so different from other disciplines as we
think!

ACTIVITY

Use either the theory of evolution or the theory of plate

tectonics and continental drift to describe how:

(a) Present day observations can be used to construct an expla-

nation of past events.

(b) The case for a new theory can be deduced logically from
observational data without the need for experimentation.

(c) To be accepted, new theories must offer explanations for a

range of phenomena.

(d) Facts change depending on current beliefs.

FD12A 65
 CRITICAL THINKING ACTIVITY

Before the next session, think about and write down the
answers to the questions below.

1. What do you think historians do as research?

2. In what ways are their research activities different from

what scientists do?

3. Do you have greater confidence in the theories of historians

or scientists? Give a reason for your answer.

66 FD12A