英語長文読解問題 科学革命の構造（トマス・クーン著）
以下の英文は、トマス・クーン著「科学革命の構造」のWikipedia英語版から抜粋したものである。英文を読み、問いに答えよ。なお、難解な英単語（用語）はWords Hintsで解説した（英文）。
※非常に長い上に難解だが、科学についての重要な思想であるため、理解しておきたい。何なら、解答・解説だけ読んでもよいだろう。科学だけではなく、経済学にも応用できる思考の枠組みだと思う。
問1：クーンは、アリストテレスの物理学に対する考え方をどのように評価したか？
問2：クーンは、「パラダイム」が科学においてどのような重要性・役割を果たし、また制約になりえると考えたか？具体例を用いて説明せよ。
問3：クーンは、コペルニクスの新しい宇宙論が当時の科学者によって受け入れられなかったことについて、どのように評価しているか？
問4：クーンは、パラダイムにおける「フェーズ1」においては、どのようなことが起こりうると考えたか？
問5：クーンは、通約不可能性（共役不可能性）について、どのように考えていたか？
The Structure of Scientific Revolutions is a book about the history of science by philosopher Thomas S. Kuhn. Its publication was a landmark event in the history, philosophy, and sociology of science. Kuhn challenged the then prevailing view of progress in science in which scientific progress was viewed as "development-by-accumulation" of accepted facts and theories. Kuhn argued for an episodic model in which periods of conceptual continuity where there is cumulative progress, which Kuhn referred to as periods of "normal science", were interrupted by periods of revolutionary science. The discovery of "anomalies" during revolutions in science leads to new paradigms. New paradigms then ask new questions of old data, move beyond the mere "puzzle-solving" of the previous paradigm, change the rules of the game and the "map" directing new research.
For example, Kuhn's analysis of the Copernican Revolution emphasized that, in its beginning, it did not offer more accurate predictions of celestial events, such as planetary positions, than the Ptolemaic system, but instead appealed to some practitioners based on a promise of better, simpler solutions that might be developed at some point in the future. Kuhn called the core concepts of an ascendant revolution its "paradigms" and thereby launched this word into widespread analogical use in the second half of the 20th century. Kuhn's insistence that a paradigm shift was a mélange of sociology, enthusiasm and scientific promise, but not a logically determinate procedure, caused an uproar in reaction to his work. Kuhn addressed concerns in the 1969 postscript to the second edition. For some commentators The Structure of Scientific Revolutions introduced a realistic humanism into the core of science, while for others the nobility of science was tarnished by Kuhn's introduction of an irrational element into the heart of its greatest achievements.
History
The Structure of Scientific Revolutions was first published as a monograph in the International Encyclopedia of Unified Science, then as a book by University of Chicago Press in 1962. In 1969, Kuhn added a postscript to the book in which he replied to critical responses to the first edition. A 50th Anniversary Edition (with an introductory essay by Ian Hacking) was published by the University of Chicago Press in April 2012.
Kuhn dated the genesis of his book to 1947, when he was a graduate student at Harvard University and had been asked to teach a science class for humanities undergraduates with a focus on historical case studies. Kuhn later commented that until then, "I'd never read an old document in science." Aristotle's Physics was astonishingly unlike Isaac Newton's work in its concepts of matter and motion. Kuhn wrote: "as I was reading him, Aristotle appeared not only ignorant of mechanics, but a dreadfully bad physical scientist as well. About motion, in particular, his writings seemed to me full of egregious errors, both of logic and of observation." This was in an apparent contradiction with the fact that Aristotle was a brilliant mind. While perusing Aristotle's Physics, Kuhn formed the view that in order to properly appreciate Aristotle's reasoning, one must be aware of the scientific conventions of the time. Kuhn concluded that Aristotle's concepts were not "bad Newton", just different. This insight was the foundation of The Structure of Scientific Revolutions.
Central ideas regarding the process of scientific investigation and discovery had been anticipated by Ludwik Fleck in Fleck (1935). Fleck had developed the first system of the sociology of scientific knowledge. He claimed that the exchange of ideas led to the establishment of a thought collective, which, when developed sufficiently, served to separate the field into esoteric (professional) and exoteric (laymen) circles. Kuhn wrote the foreword to the 1979 edition of Fleck's book, noting that he read it in 1950 and was reassured that someone "saw in the history of science what I myself was finding there."
Kuhn was not confident about how his book would be received. Harvard University had denied his tenure a few years prior. However, by the mid-1980s, his book had achieved blockbuster status. When Kuhn's book came out in the early 1960s, "structure" was an intellectually popular word in many fields in the humanities and social sciences, including linguistics and anthropology, appealing in its idea that complex phenomena could reveal or be studied through basic, simpler structures. Kuhn's book contributed to that idea.
One theory to which Kuhn replies directly is Karl Popper's "falsificationism", which stresses falsifiability as the most important criterion for distinguishing between that which is scientific and that which is unscientific. Kuhn also addresses verificationism, a philosophical movement that emerged in the 1920s among logical positivists. The verifiability principle claims that meaningful statements must be supported by empirical evidence or logical requirements.
*Words Hints 1
Episodic: This term refers to something that occurs at irregular intervals or in a series of separate events. In the context of Kuhn's work, he argues for an "episodic model" of scientific progress, suggesting that progress is not continuous but rather occurs in periods of revolutionary science separated by periods of normal science.
Anomalies: Anomalies are deviations or irregularities from what is expected or typical. In the context of scientific revolutions, anomalies refer to observations or phenomena that cannot be explained or accounted for within the existing scientific paradigm. These anomalies often lead to the questioning of the current paradigm and the development of new scientific theories or paradigms.
Mélange: This term refers to a mixture or blend of different elements. Kuhn describes a paradigm shift as a "mélange of sociology, enthusiasm, and scientific promise," suggesting that such shifts involve a complex combination of social factors, enthusiasm for new ideas, and the potential for scientific advancement.
Monograph: A monograph is a detailed written study or essay on a single subject, usually by a single author. Kuhn's book was initially published as a monograph in the International Encyclopedia of Unified Science before being released as a standalone book.
Tenure: Tenure refers to a permanent position granted to professors or researchers at academic institutions, typically after a probationary period. Kuhn mentions that Harvard University had denied him tenure prior to the publication of his book.
Blockbuster: In this context, "blockbuster" refers to something, such as a book or movie, that is extremely successful and popular, attracting widespread attention and sales.
Falsificationism: Falsificationism is a philosophical theory associated with Karl Popper that emphasizes the importance of falsifiability in distinguishing between scientific and non-scientific statements or theories. According to falsificationism, a scientific theory must be capable of being proven false through empirical testing.
Verificationism: Verificationism is a philosophical movement that emerged among logical positivists in the 1920s. It holds that meaningful statements must be capable of being verified or confirmed through empirical evidence or logical analysis.
Synopsis
Basic approach
Kuhn's approach to the history and philosophy of science focuses on conceptual issues like the practice of normal science, influence of historical events, emergence of scientific discoveries, nature of scientific revolutions and progress through scientific revolutions.[10] What sorts of intellectual options and strategies were available to people during a given period? What types of lexicons and terminology were known and employed during certain epochs? Stressing the importance of not attributing traditional thought to earlier investigators, Kuhn's book argues that the evolution of scientific theory does not emerge from the straightforward accumulation of facts, but rather from a set of changing intellectual circumstances and possibilities.
Kuhn did not see scientific theory as proceeding linearly from an objective, unbiased accumulation of all available data, but rather as paradigm-driven:
The operations and measurements that a scientist undertakes in the laboratory are not "the given" of experience but rather "the collected with difficulty". They are not what the scientist sees—at least not before his research is well advanced and his attention focused. Rather, they are concrete indices to the content of more elementary perceptions, and as such they are selected for the close scrutiny of normal research only because they promise opportunity for the fruitful elaboration of an accepted paradigm. Far more clearly than the immediate experience from which they in part derive, operations and measurements are paradigm-determined. Science does not deal in all possible laboratory manipulations. Instead, it selects those relevant to the juxtaposition of a paradigm with the immediate experience that that paradigm has partially determined. As a result, scientists with different paradigms engage in different concrete laboratory manipulations.
— Kuhn (1962, p. 216)
Historical examples of chemistry
Kuhn explains his ideas using examples taken from the history of science. For instance, eighteenth-century scientists believed that homogenous solutions were chemical compounds. Therefore, a combination of water and alcohol was generally classified as a compound. Nowadays it is considered to be a solution, but there was no reason then to suspect that it was not a compound. Water and alcohol would not separate spontaneously, nor will they separate completely upon distillation (they form an azeotrope). Water and alcohol can be combined in any proportion.
Under this paradigm, scientists believed that chemical reactions (such as the combination of water and alcohol) did not necessarily occur in fixed proportion. This belief was ultimately overturned by Dalton's atomic theory, which asserted that atoms can only combine in simple, whole-number ratios. Under this new paradigm, any reaction which did not occur in fixed proportion could not be a chemical process. This type of world-view transition among the scientific community exemplifies Kuhn's paradigm shift.
Copernican Revolution
Main article: Copernican Revolution
A famous example of a revolution in scientific thought is the Copernican Revolution. In Ptolemy's school of thought, cycles and epicycles (with some additional concepts) were used for modeling the movements of the planets in a cosmos that had a stationary Earth at its center. As accuracy of celestial observations increased, complexity of the Ptolemaic cyclical and epicyclical mechanisms had to increase to maintain the calculated planetary positions close to the observed positions. Copernicus proposed a cosmology in which the Sun was at the center and the Earth was one of the planets revolving around it. For modeling the planetary motions, Copernicus used the tools he was familiar with, namely the cycles and epicycles of the Ptolemaic toolbox. Yet Copernicus' model needed more cycles and epicycles than existed in the then-current Ptolemaic model, and due to a lack of accuracy in calculations, his model did not appear to provide more accurate predictions than the Ptolemy model. Copernicus' contemporaries rejected his cosmology, and Kuhn asserts that they were quite right to do so: Copernicus' cosmology lacked credibility.
Kuhn illustrates how a paradigm shift later became possible when Galileo Galilei introduced his new ideas concerning motion. Intuitively, when an object is set in motion, it soon comes to a halt. A well-made cart may travel a long distance before it stops, but unless something keeps pushing it, it will eventually stop moving. Aristotle had argued that this was presumably a fundamental property of nature: for the motion of an object to be sustained, it must continue to be pushed. Given the knowledge available at the time, this represented sensible, reasonable thinking.
Galileo put forward a bold alternative conjecture: suppose, he said, that we always observe objects coming to a halt simply because some friction is always occurring. Galileo had no equipment with which to objectively confirm his conjecture, but he suggested that without any friction to slow down an object in motion, its inherent tendency is to maintain its speed without the application of any additional force.
The Ptolemaic approach of using cycles and epicycles was becoming strained: there seemed to be no end to the mushrooming growth in complexity required to account for the observable phenomena. Johannes Kepler was the first person to abandon the tools of the Ptolemaic paradigm. He started to explore the possibility that the planet Mars might have an elliptical orbit rather than a circular one. Clearly, the angular velocity could not be constant, but it proved very difficult to find the formula describing the rate of change of the planet's angular velocity. After many years of calculations, Kepler arrived at what we now know as the law of equal areas.
Galileo's conjecture was merely that – a conjecture. So was Kepler's cosmology. But each conjecture increased the credibility of the other, and together, they changed the prevailing perceptions of the scientific community. Later, Newton showed that Kepler's three laws could all be derived from a single theory of motion and planetary motion. Newton solidified and unified the paradigm shift that Galileo and Kepler had initiated.
Coherence
One of the aims of science is to find models that will account for as many observations as possible within a coherent framework. Together, Galileo's rethinking of the nature of motion and Keplerian cosmology represented a coherent framework that was capable of rivaling the Aristotelian/Ptolemaic framework.
Once a paradigm shift has taken place, the textbooks are rewritten. Often the history of science too is rewritten, being presented as an inevitable process leading up to the current, established framework of thought. There is a prevalent belief that all hitherto-unexplained phenomena will in due course be accounted for in terms of this established framework. Kuhn states that scientists spend most (if not all) of their careers in a process of puzzle-solving. Their puzzle-solving is pursued with great tenacity, because the previous successes of the established paradigm tend to generate great confidence that the approach being taken guarantees that a solution to the puzzle exists, even though it may be very hard to find. Kuhn calls this process normal science.
As a paradigm is stretched to its limits, anomalies – failures of the current paradigm to take into account observed phenomena – accumulate. Their significance is judged by the practitioners of the discipline. Some anomalies may be dismissed as errors in observation, others as merely requiring small adjustments to the current paradigm that will be clarified in due course. Some anomalies resolve themselves spontaneously, having increased the available depth of insight along the way. But no matter how great or numerous the anomalies that persist, Kuhn observes, the practicing scientists will not lose faith in the established paradigm until a credible alternative is available; to lose faith in the solvability of the problems would in effect mean ceasing to be a scientist.
In any community of scientists, Kuhn states, there are some individuals who are bolder than most. These scientists, judging that a crisis exists, embark on what Kuhn calls revolutionary science, exploring alternatives to long-held, obvious-seeming assumptions. Occasionally this generates a rival to the established framework of thought. The new candidate paradigm will appear to be accompanied by numerous anomalies, partly because it is still so new and incomplete. The majority of the scientific community will oppose any conceptual change, and, Kuhn emphasizes, so they should. To fulfill its potential, a scientific community needs to contain both individuals who are bold and individuals who are conservative. There are many examples in the history of science in which confidence in the established frame of thought was eventually vindicated. It is almost impossible to predict whether the anomalies in a candidate for a new paradigm will eventually be resolved. Those scientists who possess an exceptional ability to recognize a theory's potential will be the first whose preference is likely to shift in favour of the challenging paradigm. There typically follows a period in which there are adherents of both paradigms. In time, if the challenging paradigm is solidified and unified, it will replace the old paradigm, and a paradigm shift will have occurred.
*Words Hints 2
Lexicons: Lexicons refer to the vocabulary or dictionary of a language or a specific field of study. In the context of Kuhn's work, he explores the lexicons and terminology employed in different epochs of scientific history.
Paradigm-driven: This term describes the idea that scientific theory and practice are heavily influenced by the prevailing paradigms or conceptual frameworks of a particular time period. Scientists operate within the constraints and assumptions provided by these paradigms.
Indices: In this context, indices refer to signs or indicators that point to something else. Kuhn describes operations and measurements in the laboratory as indices to the content of more elementary perceptions, meaning they provide clues or evidence derived from more basic observations.
Juxtaposition: Juxtaposition refers to the act of placing two or more things close together or side by side, often for comparison or contrast. Kuhn discusses how scientists select laboratory manipulations relevant to the juxtaposition of a paradigm with immediate experience.
Azeotrope: An azeotrope is a mixture of two or more liquids that maintains a constant boiling point and composition throughout distillation. The example provided in the text refers to the combination of water and alcohol forming an azeotrope.
Angular velocity: Angular velocity is a measure of the rate of change of angular position of an object with respect to time. It describes how quickly an object rotates around a fixed point or axis.
Paradigm shift: A paradigm shift refers to a fundamental change in the basic concepts and practices of a scientific discipline. It often involves replacing one dominant paradigm or worldview with another, leading to significant changes in scientific understanding and methodology.
Coherence: Coherence refers to the quality of being logical, consistent, and orderly. In the context of science, coherence is an important criterion for evaluating theories and models, as scientific frameworks should account for observations within a coherent framework.
Anomalies: Anomalies, as mentioned earlier, are deviations or irregularities from what is expected within a scientific paradigm. They represent observations or phenomena that cannot be explained by existing theories or models and often play a crucial role in triggering paradigm shifts.
Revolutionary science: Revolutionary science refers to the exploration of alternatives to long-held assumptions and the development of new scientific theories or paradigms. It involves challenging established frameworks of thought and can lead to significant changes in scientific understanding.
Conservative: In this context, conservative refers to individuals who are cautious or resistant to change, particularly in the context of scientific paradigms. They may prefer to adhere to established frameworks rather than embrace new or alternative theories.
Vindicated: Vindicated means to be justified or proven correct after being doubted or criticized. Confidence in established frameworks of thought may be vindicated when they are ultimately shown to be accurate or effective in explaining observed phenomena.
Solidified and unified: This phrase describes the process by which a new scientific paradigm becomes established and widely accepted within the scientific community. It involves consolidating various ideas and theories into a cohesive framework that provides a comprehensive explanation for observed phenomena.
Phases
Kuhn explains the process of scientific change as the result of various phases of paradigm change.
Phase 1 – It exists only once and is the pre-paradigm phase, in which there is no consensus on any particular theory. This phase is characterized by several incompatible and incomplete theories. Consequently, most scientific inquiry takes the form of lengthy books, as there is no common body of facts that may be taken for granted. When the actors in the pre-paradigm community eventually gravitate to one of these conceptual frameworks and ultimately to a widespread consensus on the appropriate choice of methods, terminology and on the kinds of experiment that are likely to contribute to increased insights, the old schools of thought disappear. The new paradigm leads to a more rigid definition of the research field, and those who are reluctant or unable to adapt are isolated or have to join rival groups.
Phase 2 – Normal science begins, in which puzzles are solved within the context of the dominant paradigm. As long as there is consensus within the discipline, normal science continues. Over time, progress in normal science may reveal anomalies, facts that are difficult to explain within the context of the existing paradigm. While usually these anomalies are resolved, in some cases they may accumulate to the point where normal science becomes difficult and where weaknesses in the old paradigm are revealed.
Phase 3 – If the paradigm proves chronically unable to account for anomalies, the community enters a crisis period. Crises are often resolved within the context of normal science. However, after significant efforts of normal science within a paradigm fail, science may enter the next phase.
Phase 4 – Paradigm shift, or scientific revolution, is the phase in which the underlying assumptions of the field are reexamined and a new paradigm is established.
Phase 5 – Post-revolution, the new paradigm's dominance is established and so scientists return to normal science, solving puzzles within the new paradigm.
A science may go through these cycles repeatedly, though Kuhn notes that it is a good thing for science that such shifts do not occur often or easily.
Incommensurability
According to Kuhn, the scientific paradigms preceding and succeeding a paradigm shift are so different that their theories are incommensurable—the new paradigm cannot be proven or disproven by the rules of the old paradigm, and vice versa. (A later interpretation by Kuhn of "commensurable" versus "incommensurable" was as a distinction between "languages", namely, that statements in commensurable languages were translatable fully from one to the other, while in incommensurable languages, strict translation is not possible. The paradigm shift does not merely involve the revision or transformation of an individual theory, it changes the way terminology is defined, how the scientists in that field view their subject, and, perhaps most significantly, what questions are regarded as valid, and what rules are used to determine the truth of a particular theory. The new theories were not, as the scientists had previously thought, just extensions of old theories, but were instead completely new world views. Such incommensurability exists not just before and after a paradigm shift, but in the periods in between conflicting paradigms. It is simply not possible, according to Kuhn, to construct an impartial language that can be used to perform a neutral comparison between conflicting paradigms, because the very terms used are integral to the respective paradigms, and therefore have different connotations in each paradigm. The advocates of mutually exclusive paradigms are in a difficult position: "Though each may hope to convert the other to his way of seeing science and its problems, neither may hope to prove his case. The competition between paradigms is not the sort of battle that can be resolved by proofs." Scientists subscribing to different paradigms end up talking past one another.
Kuhn states that the probabilistic tools used by verificationists are inherently inadequate for the task of deciding between conflicting theories, since they belong to the very paradigms they seek to compare. Similarly, observations that are intended to falsify a statement will fall under one of the paradigms they are supposed to help compare, and will therefore also be inadequate for the task. According to Kuhn, the concept of falsifiability is unhelpful for understanding why and how science has developed as it has. In the practice of science, scientists will only consider the possibility that a theory has been falsified if an alternative theory is available that they judge credible. If there is not, scientists will continue to adhere to the established conceptual framework. If a paradigm shift has occurred, the textbooks will be rewritten to state that the previous theory has been falsified.
Kuhn further developed his ideas regarding incommensurability in the 1980s and 1990s. In his unpublished manuscript The Plurality of Worlds, Kuhn introduces the theory of kind concepts: sets of interrelated concepts that are characteristic of a time period in a science and differ in structure from the modern analogous kind concepts. These different structures imply different "taxonomies" of things and processes, and this difference in taxonomies constitutes incommensurability. This theory is strongly naturalistic and draws on developmental psychology to "found a quasi-transcendental theory of experience and of reality."
Exemplar
Kuhn introduced the concept of an exemplar in a postscript to the second edition of The Structure of Scientific Revolutions (1970). He noted that he was substituting the term 'exemplars' for 'paradigm', meaning the problems and solutions that students of a subject learn from the beginning of their education. For example, physicists might have as exemplars the inclined plane, Kepler's laws of planetary motion, or instruments like the calorimeter.
According to Kuhn, scientific practice alternates between periods of normal science and revolutionary science. During periods of normalcy, scientists tend to subscribe to a large body of interconnecting knowledge, methods, and assumptions which make up the reigning paradigm (see paradigm shift). Normal science presents a series of problems that are solved as scientists explore their field. The solutions to some of these problems become well known and are the exemplars of the field.
Those who study a scientific discipline are expected to know its exemplars. There is no fixed set of exemplars, but for a physicist today it would probably include the harmonic oscillator from mechanics and the hydrogen atom from quantum mechanics.
*Words Hints 3
Cumulative: Cumulative means gradually increasing or building up over time. In the context of scientific progress, the idea of development-by-accumulation suggests that scientific knowledge grows incrementally through the accumulation of accepted facts and theories.
Incommensurable: Incommensurable means not comparable or interchangeable. Kuhn argues that theories before and after a paradigm shift are so different that they cannot be directly compared or evaluated using the same criteria.
Verificationists: Verificationists are proponents of a philosophical approach known as verificationism, which asserts that statements are meaningful only if they can be empirically verified or confirmed through observation or experimentation.
Falsifiability: Falsifiability is a concept introduced by philosopher Karl Popper, suggesting that for a theory to be considered scientific, it must be capable of being proven false through empirical evidence. Kuhn criticizes the notion of falsifiability as insufficient for understanding scientific development.
Taxonomies: Taxonomies refer to systems of classification or categorization. Kuhn's theory of incommensurability suggests that different scientific paradigms may employ distinct taxonomies, leading to differences in how phenomena are classified and understood.
Exemplar: An exemplar is an example or model that serves as a typical or representative instance of a concept or problem within a scientific discipline. Kuhn introduced the concept of exemplars to emphasize the role of specific problems and solutions in shaping scientific education and practice.
＊＊＊＊＊＊＊＊＊＊＊＊＊＊＊＊＊＊＊＊＊＊＊＊＊＊＊＊
解答：
問1：クーンは、アリストテレスの物理学に対する考え方をどのように評価したか？
クーンは、アリストテレスの物理学について否定的な見解を示しています。彼は、アリストテレスの物理学が現代のニュートンの物理学とは根本的に異なるものであり、概念的にも観察上も多くの誤りがあると指摘しています。特に運動に関するアリストテレスの記述については、論理的な誤りや観察の誤りが多いと述べています。ただし、彼はアリストテレスの考え方を「悪いニュートン」とは見なしておらず、単に異なるものとして理解する必要があると結論付けています。つまり、クーンはアリストテレスの物理学を否定しているわけではなく、その時代の科学的な枠組みや概念が異なることを強調しています。
問2：クーンは、「パラダイム」が科学においてどのような重要性・役割を果たし、また制約になりえると考えたか？具体例を用いて説明せよ。
クーンは、「パラダイム」が科学において非常に重要であり、科学の進歩や発展に影響を与えると考えています。彼は、科学の進歩が従来の考え方や理論の蓄積によって進むという一般的な見方に異を唱え、代わりに「正常科学」と呼ばれる概念的な連続期間が進行し、その間には累積的な進歩がある一方で、革命的な科学の期間が挟まれると主張しています。そして、科学革命の中での「異常事象」の発見が新たなパラダイムを生み出すとしています。
具体例として、クーンはコペルニクス革命を挙げています。コペルニクス革命は、当初はプトレマイオス体系よりも天体の位置などのより正確な予測を提供しなかったものの、将来的により良い、よりシンプルな解決策が開発される可能性を提案することで、一部の研究者に訴えかけました。このように、新たなパラダイムが従来のパズル解決にとどまらず、研究の方向性やルールを変えるという点で重要な役割を果たしたと指摘しています。
また、クーンはパラダイムの制約も認識しています。特定のパラダイムに固執することで、新しいアイデアや発見が排除される可能性があると警告しています。つまり、パラダイムは科学の進歩を促進する一方で、新しいアイデアやパラダイムの採用を妨げる可能性もあるということです。
問3：クーンは、コペルニクスの新しい宇宙論が当時の科学者によって受け入れられなかったことについて、どのように評価しているか？
クーンは、コペルニクスの宇宙論が当時の科学者によって拒否されたことを「かなり正しい」と評価しています。コペルニクスは、太陽が中心にあり、地球がその周りを回る惑星の1つであるという宇宙論を提唱しました。しかし、彼のモデルは、その時のプトレマイオスのモデルよりも多くの循環とエピサイクルを必要とし、その計算の精度が不足していたため、プトレマイオスのモデルよりも正確な予測を提供するようには見えませんでした。結果として、コペルニクスの同時代人たちは彼の宇宙論を拒否しました。
クーンは、この拒否が正当であったと主張しています。彼は、当時の科学的な知識や理解に基づいて、コペルニクスの宇宙論が信頼性に欠けるものであったと指摘しています。つまり、コペルニクスの宇宙論は、当時の科学的な枠組みやパラダイムに合致せず、そのために受け入れられなかったとクーンは考えています。
問4：クーンは、パラダイムにおける「フェーズ1」においては、どのようなことが起こりうると考えたか？
クーンによれば、「フェーズ1」はパラダイム前の段階であり、特定の理論について合意がない状態です。この段階では、いくつかの互いに矛盾し、不完全な理論が存在しています。その結果、ほとんどの科学的研究は長い本の形で行われます。なぜなら、当たり前の事実が共有されていないからです。やがて、パラダイム前のコミュニティの関係者がこれらの概念的な枠組みのうちの1つに傾倒し、最終的には方法、用語、および洞察の増加に貢献すると考えられる実験の種類について広範な合意に達すると、古い思想流派は消滅します。新しいパラダイムは研究分野のより厳密な定義につながり、適応することができない人々は孤立し、または競合するグループに参加する必要があります。
問5：クーンは、通約不可能性（共役不可能性）について、どのように考えていたか？
クーンによれば、パラダイムシフトの前後にある科学的パラダイムは、その理論が非対称であるため、互いに測定できないとされています。新しいパラダイムは、古いパラダイムの規則によって証明または反証することができず、その逆もまた同様です。パラダイムシフトは単に個々の理論の見直しや変換に留まるものではなく、言語が定義される方法、その分野の科学者が自らの主題を見る方法、および最も重要なことに、どの質問が有効と見なされ、どのルールが特定の理論の真実を決定するために使用されるかが変わります。新しい理論は、科学者が以前に考えていたように、単に古い理論の拡張ではなく、完全に新しい世界観です。このような通約不可能性は、パラダイムシフトの前後だけでなく、対立するパラダイムの間の期間にも存在します。それは、相互に競合するパラダイムの支持者が、科学とその問題を見る方法においては互いに違う言語を使用しているため、公正な比較を行うために中立な言語を構築することは不可能であるとクーンは述べています。
科学革命の構造：解説
トマス・クーン著『科学革命の構造』は、科学史と科学哲学における重要な著作であり、科学の発展に対する革新的な見解を提示しました。科学史を単なる知識の蓄積ではなく、パラダイムと呼ばれる枠組みの変遷として捉えた点は、大きなインパクトを与えました。
1. パラダイムとは
パラダイムとは、特定の科学分野において、一定期間にわたって共有される基本的な考え方や枠組みのことを指します。具体的には、以下のような要素が含まれます。
自然界に対する基本的な見方
研究対象とする問題
問題解決のための方法
解釈の基準
研究コミュニティの価値観
2. 科学の発展：通常科学と科学革命
クーンによれば、科学の発展は以下の2つの段階から構成されます。
通常科学：既存のパラダイムに基づいて、科学者たちが問題を解決し、知識を蓄積していく段階。パズル解きのような作業に例えられます。
科学革命：既存のパラダイムでは解決できない問題や矛盾が生じ、新しいパラダイムが誕生する段階。旧パラダイムから新パラダイムへの移行は、科学者にとって大きな転換となります。
3. 科学革命の例
クーンは、以下の科学革命を例示しています。
コペルニクス革命：天動説から地動説への移行
ニュートン革命：ガリレオの運動法則とケプラーの法則を統合した古典力学の確立
量子力学革命：従来の物理学では説明できない微視的な世界の現象を説明する量子力学の誕生
4. 科学革命の構造の重要性
『科学革命の構造』は、科学の発展に対する従来の考え方を変え、科学史研究に大きな影響を与えました。また、科学哲学、社会学、心理学など、様々な分野にも影響を与えています。
5. 参考資料
トマス・クーン著『科学革命の構造』（みすず書房）
科学革命の構造 - Wikipedia: https://ja.wikipedia.org/wiki/%E7%A7%91%E5%AD%A6%E9%9D%A9%E5%91%BD%E3%81%AE%E6%A7%8B%E9%80%A0
科学革命の構造 - 科学史・科学哲学史研究会: [無効な URL を削除しました]
補足
科学革命の構造は、出版以来、多くの議論を呼んできました。批判的な意見も多くありますが、科学の発展を理解するための重要な視座を提供していることは間違いありません。
用語解説
パラダイム：科学分野における基本的な考え方や枠組み
通常科学：既存のパラダイムに基づいて行われる科学活動
科学革命：既存のパラダイムが新しいパラダイムに取って代わられる過程
科学史：科学の発展の歴史
科学哲学：科学の性質や方法論を研究する学問
以下のWEB記事も参考にしてほしい。
科学革命の構造に対する主要な批判・反論
トマス・クーン著『科学革命の構造』は、科学史研究に大きな影響を与えた一方で、多くの批判も受けてきました。ここでは、主要な批判・反論をいくつか紹介します。
1. 科学革命の非合理性
クーンは、科学革命を「合理的な議論」ではなく、パラダイム間の「力関係」によって決定されると主張しました。しかし、科学者たちは常に論理的に思考し、より良い理論を目指して努力しているという反論があります。
2. 科学史の歪曲
クーンは、科学史をパラダイムの断絶と革命の連続として描きましたが、実際はもっと連続的な変化であるという反論があります。また、特定の科学史の事例を過度に一般化しているという批判もあります。
3. 科学の客観性の否定
クーンは、科学知識はパラダイムによって相対化されると主張しましたが、科学的真理は普遍的なものであり、パラダイムに依存しないという反論があります。
4. 科学の発展の停滞
クーンは、科学革命は一時的な混乱を伴うものの、科学の発展にとって必要不可欠であると主張しました。しかし、科学革命はむしろ科学の発展を阻害する要因であるという反論もあります。
5. 検証可能性の欠如
クーンのパラダイム理論は、明確な検証方法がないため、科学理論として認められないという批判もあります。
反論に対するクーンの回答
クーンはこれらの批判に対して、以下のように反論しています。
科学革命は非合理的な過程であると否定していないが、科学者たちは常に合理的な思考を行っている。
科学史は多様な解釈が可能であり、パラダイムという枠組みは一つの解釈に過ぎない。
科学的真理は普遍的なものであるが、科学知識は常に暫定的なものであり、修正される可能性がある。
科学革命は科学の発展にとって必要不可欠であり、停滞を招くことはない。
パラダイム理論は検証可能であり、科学史研究によって検証されている。
結論
『科学革命の構造』は、科学史研究に大きな影響を与えた一方で、多くの批判も受けてきました。しかし、科学の発展を理解するためには、重要な視座を提供していることは間違いありません。
参考資料
トマス・クーン著『科学革命の構造』（みすず書房）
科学革命の構造 - Wikipedia: https://www.wikipedia.org/
科学革命の構造 - 科学史・科学哲学史研究会: [無効な URL を削除しました]
補足
科学革命の構造は、出版以来、多くの議論を呼んできました。批判的な意見も多くありますが、科学の発展を理解するための重要な視座を提供していることは間違いありません。
この記事が気に入ったらサポートをしてみませんか？