Write a 20 page essay on Article Response.Download file to see previous pages… The breadth of Kuhn’s influence on intellectual fields is captured by Matthews (2003). According to Matthews (2003) m

Write a 20 page essay on Article Response.

Download file to see previous pages…

The breadth of Kuhn’s influence on intellectual fields is captured by Matthews (2003). According to Matthews (2003) more than a million readers were impacted by Kuhn’s works. Moreover, many more were influenced by educators and writers who discussed or otherwise debated or discussed Kuhn’s work. Matthews (2003) also points out that Kuhn’s impact on education goes further in sparking debate among scholars and impacting research and methodology techniques because Kuhn raised a number of philosophical and methodological questions relative to the acquisition of knowledge. This paper analyses Matthews’ (2003) article and draws on insight from the education philosophies of Gutek (2000) and Eisner (2001) in ascertaining the practical implications for education. This research study is therefore divided into three main parts. The first part of this study provides a summary of Matthews’ position. The second part of the paper analyses Matthew’s position and its practical implications for education by reference to Gutek (2000 &amp. 2004) and Eisner’s (2001) philosophies of education. The third part of the paper will provide the author’s position and its practical implications for education. …

m theory relates to Kuhn’s conceptualization of “normal science” which is a research technique grounded by universal concept, theory, test and methodology (p. 23). According to Matthews (2003), when Kuhn wrote The Structure of Scientific Revolutions, created an entirely different conceptualization of science and in doing so impacted “science education theory and research” (p. 91). Matthews (2003) begins by offering some insight into Kuhn as a philosopher. Kuhn was more of a “historian of science” and with no formal philosophical background was a self-described “amateur” philosopher (p. 91). Nevertheless, The Structure of Scientific Revolutions influenced philosophical argument disproportionate to the philosophical discussion contained in the actual book. Regardless, Kuhn still managed to articulate an apparently “new” and “epistemological paradigm, or theory of scientific knowledge” (Matthews, 2003, p. 92). More specifically, Kuhn’s book: …gave a modern, scientifically informed, philosophical legitimacy to much older relativist and sceptical traditions in epistemology (Matthews, 2003, p. 92). For example, ancient Protagoreans such as Plato and other realist philosophers argued that what appeared to be just was just. Influenced by Kuhn’s book, modern Protagoreans would argue that scientific truths and decisions were “intratheoretic” and a rational conclusion can be drawn by looking more closely at conflicting theories (Matthews, 2003, p. 92). Modern Protagoreans, took a more Kuhnian position arguing that “different paradigms saw different things” and not simply “saw the same thing differently”: ontological claim vs epistemological claim (Matthews, 2003, p. 93).

Leave a Reply