UNIDAD III KUHN TE CAPITULO XIII 1

Understanding Theoretical Choice in Science

Overview of Chapter 13

• The text discusses Chapter 13 from "La atención esencial," focusing on theoretical choice and its implications in scientific revolutions.

• This chapter is positioned ten years after Kuhn's classic work, addressing the abandonment of theories and paradigms.

Theoretical Choice and Rationality

• The concept of theoretical choice is a significant issue in the philosophy of science, involving how scientists justify abandoning one theory for another.

• Critics argue that Kuhn does not provide a rational structure for theoretical change, questioning the role of scientific rationality in paradigm shifts.

Strategies to Address Criticism

• Kuhn proposes two strategies:

• First, he emphasizes that scientists' choices between rival theories depend on shared criteria and individual idiosyncrasies.

• Second, he argues that these influencing criteria are not strict rules but rather values or norms guiding decisions.

Community Judgment in Theory Selection

• Kuhn suggests that without definitive criteria dictating individual choices, scientists must rely on collective judgment within their community.

• This reliance raises concerns about whether theoretical choice is more influenced by mass psychology than by rational deliberation.

Rationality vs. Persuasion

• Critics challenge Kuhn's notion of rationality, arguing it leans towards persuasion rather than systematic logical reasoning.

• Kuhn’s approach marks a shift from viewing theory selection as purely logical to understanding it as a communal judgment process.

Understanding Kuhn's Criteria for Scientific Theories

Critique of Traditional Perspectives

• Kuhn addresses criticisms regarding the perception that theoretical changes are solely based on persuasion, emphasizing a more nuanced understanding of scientific evolution.

• He highlights the importance of focusing on aspects often overlooked by traditional epistemology, aiming to shed light on neglected areas in the history of science.

Defining Good Scientific Theories

• Kuhn shifts the discussion towards what characterizes a "good" scientific theory, responding to critiques about irrationality and subjectivity in theory selection.

• He proposes five key characteristics that, while not exhaustive, provide a varied framework for evaluating scientific theories.

Shared Standards for Theory Evaluation

• These five characteristics serve as standard criteria necessary for a theory to qualify as scientifically valid, forming a shared basis among scientists during theoretical discussions.

• Kuhn explains that scientists utilize these standards like tools from a drawer when assessing which theory is superior in specific historical contexts.

Key Characteristics of Scientific Theories

• The five characteristics include precision, coherence, breadth, simplicity, and fecundity. Each plays a role in determining the quality and acceptance of theories within the scientific community.

Precision

• A theory is deemed precise if its predictions align with experimental results; however, precision is not absolute but rather exists on a spectrum.

Coherence

• Coherence requires internal logical consistency within a theory and alignment with other accepted theories and experiential aspects. This was notably illustrated during the Copernican revolution where competing astronomical models were evaluated.

Revolution Copernicana: Coherencia y Amplitud en Teorías Científicas

La Revolución Copernicana y el Proyecto Ptolemaico

• El libro "La estructura de las revoluciones científicas" de Kuhn detalla la revolución copernicana, donde se debate entre mantener el modelo ptolemaico, que había existido por 12 siglos, o adoptar la propuesta de Copérnico.

Coherencia de las Teorías

• Según Kuhn, durante el auge de la revolución copernicana, la teoría ptolemaica era más coherente no solo internamente, sino también con otras teorías aceptadas en ese momento.

• La teoría ptolemaica explicaba fenómenos como la trayectoria de proyectiles y la caída de cuerpos, lo que le daba una ventaja en términos de coherencia con otras teorías existentes.

Evaluación Histórica y Decisiones Teóricas

• Si se hubiera evaluado únicamente la coherencia al momento del surgimiento del modelo copernicano, se habría preferido el modelo ptolemaico debido a su mayor consistencia con teorías previas.

• Sin embargo, Kuhn introduce otro criterio importante: la amplitud. Una teoría debe tener consecuencias que se extiendan más allá de sus observaciones iniciales para ser considerada superior.

Complejidad en la Evaluación Teórica

• La amplitud es difícil de evaluar para un paradigma emergente como el copernicano frente a uno establecido como el ptolemaico. Se necesita tiempo para observar qué tan amplia puede ser una nueva teoría.

• Kuhn menciona que hay múltiples características a considerar al evaluar teorías; no existe un algoritmo simple para decidir cuál es mejor. Esto genera ambigüedad en las decisiones teóricas.

Reflexiones sobre Precisión y Progreso

• En términos de precisión, los cálculos realizados por Copérnico eran más precisos en algunos aspectos; sin embargo, esto no compensaba su falta de coherencia comparativa con el modelo ptolemaico.

• La evaluación teórica es rica y compleja; implica considerar muchas variables antes de llegar a una conclusión sobre cuál paradigma elegir.