As someone who is very interested in what we call "science", in how people build a satisfying career, and how we humans delude ourselves to feel safe and valuable, I am glad to have discovered your publication Liz. I look forward to following your journey! 👏
Great stuff Liz! These things aren’t discussed nearly as often as they should and your public explorations are worthwhile reading. I read Kuhn’s work carefully just before grad school (wish I could remember who recommended it....) and watched to see how accurate it was in subsequent years. It took a while but it seems more valid than ever. Sitting here now, Kuhn’s work seems to express well some of the big differences between science and academia, which I (erroneously) conflated in my early career.
Thank you for this comment. I'm impressed that you were able to carry Kuhn with you into graduate school. I think for me it was purely academic (see what I did there) and I didn't bother to apply what I'd read to what I was experiencing as a PhD student.
I may have mentioned this before, but one of the influential texts for my dissertation (on the doctor character in American literature) was Helen Longino's "Science as Social Knowledge." I haven't revisited it in years, but I think it would hold up well and would complement Kuhn nicely. Longino persuasively deconstructs the objectivity of science by showing how the context in which the scientific method takes place is shaped by social factors (gender and racial exclusions, for instance).
To illustrate this concept to students, I sometimes asked them to imagine an alien landing on Earth. What illness would the extraterrestrial being conclude was most common among humans based on television ads? At the time, it was obvious: erectile dysfunction. The fact that so much research had been disproportionately devoted to that particular problem showed how social conventions determine which questions get asked, which experiments get funded, and which products are developed as a result. I think about this today with the bias built into facial recognition software. And of course the peer review process has always been more socially driven than neutral. I'm not sure if these qualify as Kuhn's anomalies, but the shifting social context will assuredly shape the allocation of resources in science, as well as public discourse about new findings.
Another example, maybe a bit afield of your point: it's not the fault of science that we haven't sent people to Mars yet, is it? I think of the lack of political will for heroic projects at NASA as akin to the erosion of public trust in universities -- and your and my flagging belief in those systems.
Have you read Sharon Traweek's "Beamtimes and Lifetimes"? It was kind of a Bible for disaffected grad students at Wisconsin when I was one of them. Still a fascinating read.
Even though I’ve never worked in science, this resonates with me so much. It happened to me in my first field, journalism, and later it happened again when I was in academia. It feels like a key part of what defines any field or profession. And I wonder if it extends beyond that to communities in general.
I remember reading Kuhn decades ago when I stumbled across randomly in college (like you, I didn’t finish it), but I’d forgotten all about it. But just in the past few days I’ve been thinking about deep learning being generated by, or generating, or both, a deep crisis. And about how dangerous and destructive (individually, socially, politically, etc.,) when that crisis is denied. I’m excited to read more of your thoughts about this.
Thank you for this comment! I agree, in some ways the concept of paradigm applies everywhere--maybe even a fundamental feature of how the human mind works. What's insidious is how much we deny that it's going on, scientists because we believe we are totally objective (our paradigm prevents us from seeing our paradigm?!?!) . . .
I think “our paradigm prevents us from seeing our paradigm” really identifies a key characteristic of paradigms. And as someone who’s been deep in that conundrum more than once, I know the mental and emotional ways that can mess with a person.
Really interesting application of Kuhn’s work.
Thank you, Cynthia!
I am happy to leave science-oriented academia in the rear view mirror after almost 30 years. There is life outside of it and in spite of it.
Make the most out of your new paradigm of living and hopefully much less stress and anguish.
(My copy of Kuhn is second edition, magenta cover and cost $1.75!)
$1.75 seems a steal!
As someone who is very interested in what we call "science", in how people build a satisfying career, and how we humans delude ourselves to feel safe and valuable, I am glad to have discovered your publication Liz. I look forward to following your journey! 👏
Thank you for these kind words. Deluding ourselves to feel safe is pretty dang accurate!
Great stuff Liz! These things aren’t discussed nearly as often as they should and your public explorations are worthwhile reading. I read Kuhn’s work carefully just before grad school (wish I could remember who recommended it....) and watched to see how accurate it was in subsequent years. It took a while but it seems more valid than ever. Sitting here now, Kuhn’s work seems to express well some of the big differences between science and academia, which I (erroneously) conflated in my early career.
Thank you for this comment. I'm impressed that you were able to carry Kuhn with you into graduate school. I think for me it was purely academic (see what I did there) and I didn't bother to apply what I'd read to what I was experiencing as a PhD student.
Thank you for writing this.
Thank you for reading it!
I may have mentioned this before, but one of the influential texts for my dissertation (on the doctor character in American literature) was Helen Longino's "Science as Social Knowledge." I haven't revisited it in years, but I think it would hold up well and would complement Kuhn nicely. Longino persuasively deconstructs the objectivity of science by showing how the context in which the scientific method takes place is shaped by social factors (gender and racial exclusions, for instance).
To illustrate this concept to students, I sometimes asked them to imagine an alien landing on Earth. What illness would the extraterrestrial being conclude was most common among humans based on television ads? At the time, it was obvious: erectile dysfunction. The fact that so much research had been disproportionately devoted to that particular problem showed how social conventions determine which questions get asked, which experiments get funded, and which products are developed as a result. I think about this today with the bias built into facial recognition software. And of course the peer review process has always been more socially driven than neutral. I'm not sure if these qualify as Kuhn's anomalies, but the shifting social context will assuredly shape the allocation of resources in science, as well as public discourse about new findings.
Another example, maybe a bit afield of your point: it's not the fault of science that we haven't sent people to Mars yet, is it? I think of the lack of political will for heroic projects at NASA as akin to the erosion of public trust in universities -- and your and my flagging belief in those systems.
It’s amazing how much is out there about the sociology of science--my Dad suggested another book called “Laboratory Life” that I can’t wait to read!
Have you read Sharon Traweek's "Beamtimes and Lifetimes"? It was kind of a Bible for disaffected grad students at Wisconsin when I was one of them. Still a fascinating read.
Even though I’ve never worked in science, this resonates with me so much. It happened to me in my first field, journalism, and later it happened again when I was in academia. It feels like a key part of what defines any field or profession. And I wonder if it extends beyond that to communities in general.
I remember reading Kuhn decades ago when I stumbled across randomly in college (like you, I didn’t finish it), but I’d forgotten all about it. But just in the past few days I’ve been thinking about deep learning being generated by, or generating, or both, a deep crisis. And about how dangerous and destructive (individually, socially, politically, etc.,) when that crisis is denied. I’m excited to read more of your thoughts about this.
Thank you for this comment! I agree, in some ways the concept of paradigm applies everywhere--maybe even a fundamental feature of how the human mind works. What's insidious is how much we deny that it's going on, scientists because we believe we are totally objective (our paradigm prevents us from seeing our paradigm?!?!) . . .
I think “our paradigm prevents us from seeing our paradigm” really identifies a key characteristic of paradigms. And as someone who’s been deep in that conundrum more than once, I know the mental and emotional ways that can mess with a person.