Abstract:

This article focuses on an evaluation of Karl Popper’s critique of Thomas Kuhn’s concept of normal science. Kuhn describes normal science as paradigm-based research in which scientists conduct their research within the theoretical and conceptual provisions of the accepted paradigm. His idea of normal science is very controversial, and as such was criticized by many philosophers of science, especially Karl Popper. The basic questions are: What actually does Kuhn mean by normal science? What are the major occupations of scientists during normal scientific research? What are the major criticisms Popper made against Kuhn’s normal science? Is Popper right in his assessment of Kuhn’s idea of normal science? This article, employing analytical and critical methods of inquiry, examines Popper’s critique of Kuhn’s normal science. The researcher observes that Popper’s major problems with Kuhn’s idea revolve around the issues of uncriticality and dogmatism. However, this article argues that Kuhnian normal scientists seem not to be as ‘dogmatic’ and ‘not-too-critical’ as Popper claims. Popper’s fundamental problem in his assessment of Kuhnian normal science is that he assessed Kuhn’s normal science in isolation without taking adequate cognizance of its proper context. Nevertheless, Popper’s non-dogmatic approach to the scientific investigation could be said to be very necessary for the development of science in general.