S1L4P2 - Différents paradigmes

We are now going to discuss the notion of paradigm by seeking to answer the following question: does the scientific approach, just because it is scientific, ensures the objectivity? What's more, is the understanding of a phenomenon the same for any scientist anywhere, anytime? We can see the sun rise in the sky every morning before observing it set every night

- "The sun moves around the Earth" - "No, the sun is still and it's the Earth that moves around it". And, in this specific case, it's the Earth spinning on itself… In fact, we analyse phenomena according to our preconceptions. Without them, phenomena would appear meaningless. These preconceptions allow us to make sense of the phenomena surrounding us;

science calls them: "paradigms". "A paradigm is a set of theories, on the nature of a phenomenon, scientifically recognised as valid and shared by virtually all of the scientific community" We have mentioned earlier an important change of paradigm: the transition from geocentrism (the sun spins around the Earth), to heliocentrism (the Earth spins around the sun).

It is therefore not only a matter of what spins around what, but also about our whole conception of the universe. What we just discussed is nothing other than the… Copernician revolution! Revolution! The notion of "paradigm revolution" originates from historian of science, Thomas Kuhn. According to him, scientific progress doesn't come from a mere stacking of knowledge

but from breakthroughs in the general understanding of phenomena, meaning… paradigms. Generally, paradigms are exclusive, that is, they do not coexist. But within a paradigm, there can be different schools and doctrines, coexisting at the same time, within the same field of study. "Political science doesn't make an exception to the rule."