CHALLENGING WHAT WE THINK WE KNOW
Editors Note: This article by Eric M. (’14) is an explanation of part of Thomas Kuhn’s “The Structure of Scientific Revolution” that he was required to read for the Experimentum Crucis symposium.
Would you believe if someone told you that the reason that earth-like objects, such as rocks, fall because they want to be in their natural state with the earth? Of course not! We believe in gravity, and there doesn’t seem to be any problem with our current explanation of why things fall to the earth. For almost two millennia, however, people believed that this was the case- and that short explanation is only a fragment of a much larger theory called Aristotelian Physics. It wasn’t until scientists like Copernicus and Galileo performed their experiments that people realized that Aristotelian physics wouldn’t work. So why was Aristotle’s theory kept around for so long, even though we now know that he was wrong?
Thomas Kuhn, the author of The Structure of Scientific Revolutions, argues that the lack of change is because a challenge to Aristotle’s theory was not posited; there was no real need for change. As far as everyone was concerned during these two millennia, Aristotelian Physics worked. The average person could look at their world and see all of Aristotle’s theories in action, so he must have been right. In fact, people were so certain that Aristotle was right that you could be executed for going against his ideas. That certainly did not help the progression of his ideas into what we believe today.
Once scientists like Galileo performed their experiments people realized there were flaws in Aristotle’s theories. There were now several holes in Aristotle’s theories that couldn’t be explained in any way. Now there had to be a change in what people believed how physics worked. Newton and several others helped develop the idea of what we know to be as gravity today, which further explained what Aristotle had seen, as well as addressed the flaws seen in his theories. Although people might have had ideas in the early centuries similar to those now commonly accepted, there was no way that these would have become widespread because there was no reason for change.
Another enduring theory from the past that fits this idea is the phlogiston theory. This theory explained why objects combusted; if they combusted then they were rich in phlogiston, and as they burned the object released this phlogiston into the air. The air could only hold a certain amount of phlogiston, so once the air was saturated combustion stopped. This idea was held as true until Robert Boyle found that some metals gained mass when burned, which was thought as strange because objects were supposed to lose phlogiston. This counter-evidence was not enough to deter the firm believers of phlogiston who changed the theory to include that phlogiston had negative weight; what seems to us a desperate attempt at keeping the theory intact. Once enough counter-evidence mounted against the phlogiston theory, it clearly had to change.
Once we believe in certain facts, it is hard to think about any other possibilities besides what we believe. It is only once these facts are fundamentally challenged that the prospect of change can occur.
Thomas Kuhn, the author of The Structure of Scientific Revolutions, argues that the lack of change is because a challenge to Aristotle’s theory was not posited; there was no real need for change. As far as everyone was concerned during these two millennia, Aristotelian Physics worked. The average person could look at their world and see all of Aristotle’s theories in action, so he must have been right. In fact, people were so certain that Aristotle was right that you could be executed for going against his ideas. That certainly did not help the progression of his ideas into what we believe today.
Once scientists like Galileo performed their experiments people realized there were flaws in Aristotle’s theories. There were now several holes in Aristotle’s theories that couldn’t be explained in any way. Now there had to be a change in what people believed how physics worked. Newton and several others helped develop the idea of what we know to be as gravity today, which further explained what Aristotle had seen, as well as addressed the flaws seen in his theories. Although people might have had ideas in the early centuries similar to those now commonly accepted, there was no way that these would have become widespread because there was no reason for change.
Another enduring theory from the past that fits this idea is the phlogiston theory. This theory explained why objects combusted; if they combusted then they were rich in phlogiston, and as they burned the object released this phlogiston into the air. The air could only hold a certain amount of phlogiston, so once the air was saturated combustion stopped. This idea was held as true until Robert Boyle found that some metals gained mass when burned, which was thought as strange because objects were supposed to lose phlogiston. This counter-evidence was not enough to deter the firm believers of phlogiston who changed the theory to include that phlogiston had negative weight; what seems to us a desperate attempt at keeping the theory intact. Once enough counter-evidence mounted against the phlogiston theory, it clearly had to change.
Once we believe in certain facts, it is hard to think about any other possibilities besides what we believe. It is only once these facts are fundamentally challenged that the prospect of change can occur.
Kuhn, Thomas S. The Structure of Scientific Revolutions. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press, 1996.
