Try to picture a scientist in your head. What do they look like?
Are they wearing a white coat in a laboratory trying to find the perfect balance of some chemicals in a test tube? Or are they on a ship going on a voyage across the seven seas trying to collect evidence for their theories?
In fact, the two images of a scientist described above represent two very different schools in the philosophy of science - a topic that scientists hate but philosophers love.
In the second half of the 20th century, two philosophers were engaged in a debate about the role a scientist should play in relation to the rest of the scientific field.
One side, the side of Karl Popper, believed that a scientist should always be sceptical. It is the duty of a scientist to be critical of the “normal science” and try to improve on it by disproving its theories and hypothesis.
The other side, that of Thomas Kuhn, believed that criticism of normal sciences should be rare.
What do these people mean by ‘normal sciences’?
Think of it this way, at any moment, there is a normally accepted scientific fact. The law of gravitation, Newton’s laws of motion, the principle of reinforcement and punishment in psychology etc.
For Popper, it is the duty of the scientist to try and find evidence which disproves or falsifies this normal science in an effort to improve it. Kuhn, on the other hand, believes a scientist should try to build on these theories and learn something new.
Now imagine that an experiment was conducted whose results were inconsistent with the Law of Gravitation.
For a hard-line Popperian, this would mean the Law of Gravitation needs to be changed in some form. An extreme Kuhnian would say, “Hold on buddy. Maybe you did the experiment wrong.”.
A reasonable person like the reader of this newsletter will immediately think “Well, why not take the middle route between both of them?” But we all know philosophers to be anything but reasonable, don’t we?
Psychology, Kuhn and Popper
What do the debates between Kuhn and Popper have to do with Psychology?
Two things. One, both philosophers contributed to scientific psychology in their own way. Kuhn gave us the concept of paradigmatic shifts in research while Popper gave us the theory of falsification.
Secondly, and more importantly, Kuhn and Popper gave us two roads to choose between as scientists.
Do we remain perenially critical of the status quo? Or do we try to build on it and dismiss the critics of the norm?
Try to think of the times of Freud when psychoanalysis was the reigning force. A Kuhnian would have allowed the school of thought to remain dominant in the field while a Popperian would have criticised the practice.
Then, think of modern times where neuropsychology and cognitive sciences rule the world of Psychology. At such a time a Popperian will criticize the lack of insight these fields offer into the experience of consciousness. A Kuhnian will allay these doubts with some achievements in these fields and encourage building on what we already have.
I started this article by asking you to imagine a scientist. One is going out to travel the world, build on the work of his predecessors and collect evidence. The other is trying to work in a lab to falsify a null hypothesis.
Both of them are working to create knowledge using scientific research in their own way. The only difference is the road they take.
Which road do you want to take as a scientist?
The debate of Kuhn and Popper also plays out quite often in our everyday life.
Have you ever known one of those irritating people who try to find the exceptions to every statement?
If you look at it from their perspective, they are simply trying to add more nuance and details into what is a general statement. Yes, it is annoying but that is what a Popperian usually is.
Can you figure out what a Kuhnian would be like in usual life?
You can let me know by replying to this email or in the comments section :)
🛣🎯🖊