1

Shant Shahbazian

Faculty of ChemistryShahid Beheshti University

History of Science: A “discrete” narrative

2

The remote origins of Science: Back to ancient Egypt (2560 BC)

Khufu is the pharaoh of Egypt and he is willing for immortality, a place among gods…He ordains for a tomb… And his people build one for him…Khufu is immortal, thanks not to the gods of Egypt but the “knowledge” of his peopleThis knowledge has been incarnated in the great pyramid of GizaEgyptians had similar concerns like us: “Power” of changing the world as “is” to a world as “must be”, and they need to some kind of “cognition” for such power…

3

The birth of Science: Western Europe (1620 AC)

Francis Bacon was an English Nobleman living in an age of rapid social changes and religious reformations…

One of his goals was “uncovering truth” the other “serving his country” …

In 1620 he published his philosophical book with a Latin title “Novum Organum” (means New Method)

In this book he proposed a great reformation in ways of “acquiring knowledge” and a universal, standard “method” to reach the truth

“Inductive reasoning” was Bacon’s universal method and the resulting cognition was named “Science”

For the next 300 years Science was growing explosively and the induction was assumed to be “the” scientific method…

4

A brief overview of the scientific method

Nature

Predictions

Deduction

TheoriesInduction

Observations

“Regional” Facts

Experiments

5

How Science progress according to the scientific method: A “continuous”

narration

6

Induction: An example from heavens…

7

The consequences of the inductive view to Science

Scientific method is a “mechanical/automated” approach that its success is guaranteed per se. It is the golden protocol.

History of Science is the manifestation of the scientific method. There is a steady growth in Science.

Scientists are “human robots” that are using the scientific method systematically in their own disciplines. Science is not a creative endeavor not at least like art and literature.

“Observations” are of prime importance and the basis of the scientific method and theories are just the result of observations. Observations are prior to theories.

A scientific theory are just a “collection” of laws and statements that each, as an “ingredient” of a theory, has been verified based on observations. The truth of a theory stems from the truth of its ingredients.

8

Science as “is” versus Science as “must be”

9

History of Science as a “laboratory”: Geocentric vs. Heliocentric systems

Both Geocentric and Heliocentric systems were proposed by Greek philosophers and scientists ~ 300 BC

However, from ~200 AC, after Ptolemy's classics Almagest, the geocentric system predominated astronomy

The Heliocentric systems revived by Nicolas Copernicus in 1543

Since then the Heliocentric system dominated the European astronomy almost within a century…

10

How the Geocentric to Heliocentric transition has been taken place?

What are the “new” observations used by Copernicus?

How did he answer to the criticism of Ptolemy to the moving earth theory (strong winds obstacle)?

What is the main advantage of Heliocentric system over geocentric systems in Copernicus view?

Nothing!

Nothing!

Simplicity of astronomical calculations!

11

What the history of Science tells us? Copernicus approach was mostly based on “reorganization”

of known facts rather than using new observations The astronomical observations of the day were compatible

with both the Geocentric and Heliocentric systems thus observations were not the origin of Heliocentric “revolution”

Upon Copernicus reorganization, the astronomical observations acquire new “meaning” thus theory seems to be at least as crucial as observations

Even more, the Copernicus Heliocentric system proposes a novel quest for new observations so theory guides the observations…

None of these are in line with the presumed scientific method…

12

Theory driven observations Observations are motivated by

our assumptions and theories so there is no such thing as a “naked” observation

On the other hand, theories are determining the “relevance” of observations so observations are theory biased

It seems that theories but not observations are of crucial importance in Science

This is a real crack for the inductive method…

13

Beyond “the” Scientific method

14

Structuralism: A novel view to the progress of Science

In 1962 Thomas Kuhn, educated as a physicist, proposed a radical departure from previous theories on the progress of science

In his view science experiences “phase transitions” and its progress is both “discrete” and “continuous”

15

Principles behind Structuralism A scientific theory is not a “mass of statements” but an

“organized whole” so a theory is more like an organized network of concepts and their relationships

Each “concept“ of a theory has a precise meaning since it has a well-defined place in the network so a theory must have a “solid” structure

Historically, in initial stages of introduction, since the theory is not yet matured, concepts are loosely defined, but as the solid structure of a theory emerges, concepts become more precise thus every concept like atom, temperature, field or chemical element has a history of evolution

Solid theoretical structures, not separate statements or observations, are the basic units for the analysis of the history of Science

16

Possible modes of growth…

17

Elements of Kuhn’s theory: Paradigms and revolutions

Paradigm: Every organized science includes some general theoretical principles, accepted laws, standard experimental and theoretical techniques and recipes for their applications. More, it has some goals. A paradigm emerge from a consensus of a scientific community.

Pre-paradigm: Before the shaping of a paradigm every science experiences a primary phase that scientists activities are scattered and not in harmony. There is no consensus on general principles, validation of techniques and even the goals. The “first” paradigm emerges from such chaotic stage.

Normal Science: Scientists “within” a paradigm are practicing normal science. They are involved in developing the paradigm and solving problems. During these developments the consistency of paradigm increases. Every normal science has some “anomalies” that are unsolved problems or paradoxical situations.

Crisis: If during the growth of a paradigm some anomalies persist, and the attempts to solve them lead to nowhere, a crisis starts.

Revolution: The crisis remains until a new paradigm emerges and a large number of scientists accepts its validity dismissing the previous paradigm. This “discrete” evolution is a scientific revolution.

18

A schematic view of the “discrete” narrative of the history of science

19

The Geocentric paradigm versus the Heliocentric paradigm

20

Epilogue: Science as a “Human” endeavor

There are no general rules guiding scientists to construct new paradigms so there are always “creative” elements in scientists’ actions and decisions

Not all unsolved problems leads to crisis but a “decision” must be made about the “crucial” anomalies so the perception of a scientific community of a paradigm is part of any scientific revolution

There are psychological and sociological ingredients that are determinative for a scientist to abandon the established paradigm during a revolution and embrace the new paradigm so elements beyond rational thinking are crucial to persuade a revolution

Paradigms are “incommensurate” so logically they are not completely comparable thus no rational reasoning is enough to be used as an argument to demonstrate the prominence of a new paradigm relative to its old rival…

21

Thanks for your attention