An Article Review on the Role Dogma plays in Research
Kuhn (1963) stated that to some extent, dogma had a place in scientific research. Dogma was used in this paper to refer to a doctrine or belief that is held by the scientific community. Khun (1963) advocates for the status quo but states that despite the fact that effective research requires commitment to the status quo, the main driving factor in this area is innovation (p. 368 ).
Khun observes that a scientist embarking on a study in a scientific discipline is required to have an open mind while at the same time having to consider paradigms that already exist in his or her scientific field of study. On the other hand dogmas can hold back scientists because they prevent him or her from exploring additional possibility in that particular field. Take for instance gravity, the paradigm that holds true is that gravity holds all beings and objects to the ground. However, there might be another explanation for this phenomena. By holding the dogma, a scientist cannot begin to explore the additional possibility as it is negated by the dogma. Therefore there is a partial function for dogma in scientific research.
Khun (1963 p. 352) used the phrase “paradigm in science” to refer to a set of principles and concept that defined a scientific discipline at any particular period of time. He compared concepts of the arts and those of sciences and observed that while arts can accommodate various concepts referring to the same issue, sciences cannot. He however conceived that sciences can sometimes recognize numerous concepts in the same field. According to Kuhn (1963), at any given time, the professionals in a given field may recognize several classics that are incompatible with each other; however, if such a group has a paradigm it can only be one despite the variations in the classics (p. 352).
Khun notes that paradigms in science change with time. He notes that until paradigms developed, many fields of sciences resembled the arts. Their development did not depend deeply on paradigm shifts and were recognizing any work by any scientists despite the fact that the concepts there in were contradictory. With time, paradigms change. Khun refers to the practice common with scientists where they replace books that are out of date, replacing them with up to date versions.
An example of a pre-paradigm science field is the study of electricity. Before Franklin, there had been a significantly big number of scientists all with different theories about the nature of electricity. For more than a century there were differing concepts which were all recognized but none explained it. Franklin developed the first paradigm in the field of electricity, though his theory did not explain everything about electricity, he set grounds for other future scientists to work on the field. Khun (1963) attributes the development in the field of electricity after Franklin to the first paradigm in that field.
There is still a part of this paradigm in the current paradigm. Khun draws a conclusion about the definition of the term paradigm by saying that it is a basic scientific achievement and one that integrates both theory and practical application of observational and experimental results (p. 358).
Kuhn, T. (1963). Scientific Change. New York: Basic Books
