Sorted by date | |||
page049from Building Ideas
cumulative model of the dominant positivist conception. What Kuhn’s description clearly highlights is the importance of the individual who, in the free exercise of their will, can see beyond the dominant paradigm. It is only by questioning received wisdom and the assumptions of tradition that significant breakthroughs have been made which have allowed the expansion of scientific knowledge. While this model borrows from the world of art the idea of changes to our ways of seeing, it also relies on the artist’s critical instinct as a means to challenge accept norms. This notion of the artist as a critic who steps outside the dominant paradigm had also persisted in architecture, as suggested in Chapter 1. To understand the influence of this view of the architect as intuitive artist, it is worth taking a moment to consider the status of art in philosophy – more specifically in aesthetics – both before and after Hegel.
|
|||
|
|||
|
|||
Messagefrom General Criticsexperimental science or mechanical world configure that there are limited target container as "paradigm", if no container is fitted , these data and creatures are left as misgivings or wrongs.
|
|||
|
|||
|
|||
Messagefrom General Criticsprogress was a steady and linear development involving the gradual accumulation of experimental data that would eventually account for all phenomena within a single unified system
|
|||
|
|||
|
|||
page048from Building Ideasprogression of human knowledge. Likewise, what later became known as “positivism” in both the physical and social sciences –thanks to the French philosopher Auguste Comte – claimed that progress was a steady and linear development involving the gradual accumulation of experimental data that would eventually account for all phenomena within a single unified system. The book that has recently attacked this notion of science and helped restore the case for art as an alternative “language”, or means of describing the world, is The Structure of Scientific Revolutions. First published in 1962, and written by Thomas Kuhn, a professor of philosophy at Massachusetts Institute of Technology(M.I.T), the book describes clearly the growth of scientific knowledge, punctuated as it is by periodic upheavals when new innovations are developed. Kuhn sets out an intriguing pattern which appears to recur in the history of science, caused by the appearance of experimental data which fail to fit within an established framework. This framework for interpretation, or “paradigm” as Kuhn prefers to call it, is what controls the scope of research being carried out in a particular period as well as predicting the likely outcome of a range of relevant experiments. This is what Kuhn refers to as the process of normal science, which involves the gathering of experimental data in support of a particular paradigm. Gradually this framework is “filled in” with the accumulation of detail, confirming and completing the picture that the paradigm describes in general outline. Any data that falls outside these set parameters can either be ignored as inaccurate or dismissed as irrelevant or, if sufficiently persistent and troublesome for the previous paradigm, can begin to cause misgivings, leading to a “crisis” in the scientific community. In response to this situation an alternative paradigm will be put forward to explain the anomalous data and thereby suggest new areas of research. Those major “paradigm shifts”, or revolutions, described in the book’s title, happen relatively rarely, such as in the Copernican restructuring of the universe or, more recently, with Einsteinian relativity.
The idea of a shared community “language” which undergoes dramatic and regular transformations provides another way understanding the actual progress of experimental science, beyond the
|
|||
|
|||
Messagefrom General Critics"Historically, however, an alternative position can be identified, which supports the status of architecture as a cultural, not merely a technical, activity. " architecture as a cultural progress as well as one technical operation.
|
|||
|
|||
|