Kuhn - Tentative Answer 2

Normal science to Kuhn is something that should be solvable by normal rules and procedures, and which follow the normal basic foundations of science. It is the regular work of scientists when they make theories and observe and perform experiments within a paradigm. A scientific paradigm is a set of concepts, theories, methods, and standards for what is considered a legitimate contribution to the field. (So a paradigm is a framework of boundaries/rules that must be followed for something to be legitimate.) I liked that Kuhn said that if science "is the constellation of facts, theories, and methods collected in current texts, then scientists are the men who, successfully or not, have striven to contribute one or another element to that particular constellation". I don't think this is super relevant but it reminded me of the quote from Cloud Atlas (David Mitchell) that goes, "My life amounts to no more than one drop in a limitless ocean. Yet what is any ocean, but a multitude of drops?" So anyone who works in science, even if they had a mistake in their conclusion, contributes to this constellation of knowledge!! This reminded me also of a concept I learned in chamber ensemble -- all three of us in our trio contribute to this imaginary "sphere" of music above us, which is more than the sum of the three of us. The sphere is unique to every performance, and is shaped by everything that we put into it, which includes both any mistakes (like if we don't come in together) and any improvements, planned or not, at the time of performance.

When new science is presented, it "often suppresses fundamental novelties because they are necessarily subversive of its basic commitments", but "so long as those commitments retain an element of the arbitrary, the very nature of normal research ensures that novelty shall not be suppressed for very long".  I took this to mean that when people are doing research about a new topic, at first it will seem disruptive to pre-existing knowledge, but as long as it stays on track with the fundamental laws of nature it will soon fit back in through reason. I remember that over the summer when I was working on a startup at an accelerator in Brooklyn, one of the speakers came in told us that the world is so fast-paced that we don't have the time to spare or the time to develop the ability to prove again from scratch the fundamental theories, but we accept them because they have been proven to be true (or at least not been proven to be false; and we also learn from other people's errors so that we don't have to waste time on that again), and we use these as building blocks/resources for us to discover new knowledge. Standing on the shoulders of giants we are able to advance further because we already have the support from the past and can apply them to the future. Also, another example is in my accounting/finance professor's textbooks, he often writes "Convince yourself that this is true." and has us think about the concept by ourselves until we either understand it or give up and believe in it so that we can move on.

(I might come back to write more later but I have to go to elections right now!! See you later or in class!!)