Full-text resources of CEJSH and other databases are now available in the new Library of Science.
Visit https://bibliotekanauki.pl

Results found: 3

first rewind previous Page / 1 next fast forward last

Search results

Search:
in the keywords:  normal science
help Sort By:

help Limit search:
first rewind previous Page / 1 next fast forward last
1
Publication available in full text mode
Content available

Is normal science good science?

100%
Kępińska A.
Semina Scientiarum
|
2015
|
vol. 14
EN
“Normal science” is a concept introduced by Thomas Kuhn in The Structure of Scientific Revolutions (1962). In Kuhn’s view, normal science means “puzzle solving”, solving problems within the paradigm-framework most successful in solving current major scientific problems-rather than producing major novelties. This paper examines Kuhnian and Popperian accounts of normal science and their criticisms to assess if normal science is good. The advantage of normal science according to Kuhn was “psychological”: subjective satisfaction from successful “puzzle solving”. Popper argues for an “intellectual” science, one that consistently refutes conjectures (hypotheses) and offers new ideas rather than focus on personal advantages. His account is criticized as too impersonal and idealistic. Feyerabend’s perspective seems more balanced; he argues for a community that would introduce new ideas, defend old ones, and enable scientists to develop in line with their subjective preferences. The paper concludes that normal science has no one clear-cut set of criteria encompassing its meaning and enabling clear assessment.
2

At sea: What direction for critical early childhood research?

99%
Urban M.
Journal of Pedagogy
|
2016
|
vol. 7
|
issue 1
107-121
EN
In this paper I reflect on the dilemma critical early childhood research finds itself in today. In order to distinguish and distance ourselves from the certainties and seemingly unquestionable truths of post-political, mainstream, ‘normalised’ research and its entanglement with neoliberal agendas and corporate interests, have we rendered ourselves irrelevant in the struggle for social justice that once formed the basis for critical inquiry in our field? What hope can there be to (re-)claim the political in our research, and what new (and old) alliances can we count on?
3
Content available remote

Paradygmat jako podstawa normalnego uprawiania nauki: nauki społeczne a przyrodoznawstwo. Ujęcie Thomasa Samuela Kuhna

57%
Jankowski K.
In Gremium. Studia nad Historią, Kulturą i Polityką
|
2017
|
vol. 11
193-231
PL
Artykuł stawia sobie za cel pokazanie, jak T.S. Kuhn widział zasadniczą różnicę między naukami społecznymi (głównie socjologią) a matematycznym przyrodoznawstwem (głównie fizyką, astronomią i chemią) oraz jak do tego zagadnienia odnosili się przedstawiciele nauk społecznych. Dwie pierwsze części przedstawiają Kuhnowskie rozumienie paradygmatu oraz normalnego uprawiania nauki. W części trzeciej jego spostrzeżenia dotyczące natury teorii społecznych zestawione są z tym, co na ten temat myślą przedstawiciele nauk społecznych. Przeważnie socjologowie zgodni są co do tego, że pluralizm teorii ogólnych świadczy o kryzysie w ich dyscyplinie. Zgadzają się zatem z tym, co na ten temat sądził Kuhn. W ich środowisku pojawiają się również opinie odmienne. Świadczą one o tym, że, podobnie jak w naukach przyrodniczych, wśród samych uczonych nie ma zgody co do tego, który z modeli uprawiania nauki − pluralistyczny czy monoteoretyczny − jest modelem bardziej pożądanym.
EN
Article aims to present how Kuhn behold the fundamental difference between the social sciences (especially sociology) and mathematical natural science (mainly physics, astronomy and chemistry) as well as to the issue they treated representatives of the social sciences. The first two parts represent the Kuhn’s understanding of paradigm and practicing normal science. In the third part of Kuhn’s insights about the nature of social theory compare with what think about this social scientists. Mostly sociologists are unanimous about the fact that pluralism theory of general testifies to the crisis in their discipline. Therefore they agree with what he thought about this Kuhn. In the environment, there are also different opinions. They show that, as in the natural sciences among themselves scholars there is no consensus as to which model of doing science – or pluralistic monottheoretical – is a model more desirable.
first rewind previous Page / 1 next fast forward last
JavaScript is turned off in your web browser. Turn it on to take full advantage of this site, then refresh the page.