Setting standardize paradigm, let it be basic assumptions or
steps for evaluating any theory, for any branch of science is a important step
to develop understanding about that particular discipline. Imre Lakatos’s efforts
regarding Methodology of Scientific Research Program (MSRP) have become a
question for its critics. Is there any law in political science of method of evaluation
that exists? The argument between Imre Lakatos and Thomas Kuhn shows the importance
of setting paradigm. However they failed to agree on the level of flexibilities
that can be used while considering paradigms. It is not inadequate to say that
behind every reasoning and scientific theory there is a particular assumptions
which allow us to understand how successful a particular theory is. Without that
we cannot be able to define and explain anything keeping everything variable. However,
I would to second Kuhn’s view point that we still needs to decide between the
different less and more prominent paradigm. Less and more prominent means how
much support one basic theory has?
Kuhn argued that we see a discipline in a particular way until a paradigm shift, as was being attempted by Hoffmann and Lakatos. But paradigm shifts in the social sciences are fundamentally different from the natural sciences. Examining how to view competing paradigms would be a useful exercise for you to prefer.
ReplyDeleteRemember you need to write a minimum of 250 words (your piece is 168 words). Also proofread and structure your thoughts in paragraphs please.