Monday, December 04, 2006


"In the development of any science, the first received paradigm is usually felt to account quite successfully for most of the observations and experiments easily accessible to that science's practitioners. Further development, therefore, ordinarily calls for the construction of elaborate equipment, the development of an esoteric vocabulary and skills, and a refinement of concepts that increasingly lessens their resemblance to their usual common-sense prototypes. That professionalization leads, on the one hand, to an immense restriction of the scientist's vision and to a considerable resistance to paradigm change. The science has become increasingly rigid. On the other hand, within those areas to which the paradigm directs the attention of the group, normal science leads to a detail of information and to a precision of the observation-theory match that could be achieved in no other way. Furthermore, that detail and precision-of-match have a value that transcends their not always very high intrinsic interest. Without the special apparatus that is constructed mainly for anticipated functions, the results that lead ultimately to novelty could not occur. And even when the apparatus exists, novelty ordinarily emerges only for the man [or woman] who, knowing with precision what he [or she] should expect, is able o recognize that somehing has gone wrong."

(Thomas Kuhn: The Structure of Scientific Revolutions, 3° ed., 64-65.)

Voy a extrañar todo.

1 comment:

Bloom said...

El mundo entero no es más que un puente súmamente estrecho. No obstante, lo más importante, es no tener miedo.

Rabbi Nachman de Breslov