The (Narrative) Structure of Scientific Revolutions?
Revision is over and I can write this in my light and airy
room at home, rather than in that dark, airless box in which I’ve spent a large
proportion of the last two weeks.
Exam revision is great for linking ideas which initially
appear to be separate and discrete. One link which occurred to me was
between narrative theory and Thomas Kuhn’s ‘Structure of Scientific Revolutions’.
Narrative scholars, such as Vladimir Propp
and Tzvetan Todorov have tried to determine what the general structure of a narrative is. While Propp’s
structure is really weighty, and a bit vague (it seems his ‘spheres of action’
can apply to anything), Todorov argued that all narratives fit within a basic,
five-step frame – much more sensible.
All narratives start with an initial equilibrium. Early on,
there is a disruption from this equilibrium, the characters notice this disruption. There is then an
attempt to put the disruption right, before a final equilibrium is reached.
It struck me that Todorov’s structure can also be used to
define Thomas Kuhn’s paradigm shifts as a narrative. Kuhn
came up with the idea that science usually works within a clearly defined 'paradigm'. This is known as ‘normal science’. During this time, according to Kuhn, many scientists
‘puzzle solve’ – essentially ponder questions which almost certainly
have an answer. Occasionally an experiment yields unexpected results, but this
is largely ignored (swept under the carpet would be another way of putting it).
Over time more and more inconsistencies with the theory are discovered. At this
moment, many scientists within the field try to address these by coming up with
a new paradigm. There is a struggle and one of these paradigms is eventually
chosen, resulting in equilibrium once more.
Perhaps this narrative structure within Kuhn’s paradigm
shifts is a reflection of the fact that he used historical examples to come up
with this idea. We must construct narratives to make sense of nature. Without a
coherent story, we do not see the significance of certain events. Maybe
paradigm shifts offer such a coherent story in the history of science.
Comments