Study On The Differences And Similarities Between Kuhn’s Theory Of Paradigm And Merton’s Theory Of Norm

The paradigm in Kuhn’s theory is the sign used to distinguish science and non-science, and in latter times the sign changed to dictionary. At the same time, Kuhn also showed the inclination of scientific hermeneutics in his later thoughts. Kuhn thought that the history of science is not a continuous process of accumulation of knowledge, but rather an intermittent replace of paradigm. From this reason Kuhn’s view of science was named as "paradigm theory". The norm was also important in Merton’s scientific sociology. Because Merton did his research on science as a social system, his focus was on the structure and operating mechanism of science itself. The system cannot go without norms, and the social system must be maintained and adjusted by social norm, thus standards is the prerequisite for social standards to be existed, and it has the function of maintaining and achieving the goal of the system. Merton thought there were four Institutional norms which formed the ethos of science, i.e. universalism, communism, disinterestedness and organized skepticism. After putting up this theory, Merton and his students complemented and developed this theory further, and researched the structure, stratification, interaction and communication of the scientific community further from the experience aspect.This paper deals with the sameness and difference between the paradigm and norms on four aspects ranging from the characteristics, function, and the standards of delimitation for science and basis of the difference. The characteristics of paradigm and norms showed mainly on three aspects of the scientific community, the system of science, and values and culture. There are differences as well as sameness in these three areas. In the first place, the scientific community to which they belong is incommensurable. Secondly, the emphasis of paradigms and norms placed on science as a system is different. The former is mainly theoretical explanations from the perspective of the individuals in the scientific community, while the latter focused on the group’s point of view. Finally, the paradigm and norms have the characteristics of value and cultural, but each paradigm represents different values and culture, while the values and culture represented by norms are definite.The function of paradigm and norms are expressed in the following two aspects. Firstly, as the values and behavior guidelines believed by the scientific community, Paradigm guides the scientific research in the community, and ensures the orderly conduct of the community research. Norm as an institution regulates the various relationships between scientists in the community, and in order to survive in the scientific community, scientists must obey such norms. If a member contradicts the norms, he/she is likely to be expelled from the scientific community. From the point of view of ensuring the normal operation of the scientific community, the role of paradigm and the norms is the same, i.e. both to promote the development of science.The establishment of paradigm and the formation of norms both marked the establishment of a certain kind of science, and the two are different from a development point of view. First of all, in the development of science, the formation of the new science is due to the establishment of a new paradigm, which means that different scientific system has different paradigms, and these paradigms are incommensurable. The history of scientific development is essentially the new paradigm overthrowing the old paradigm and setting up the authority in the process. But In the process of scientific development, the norms is static, which means that norms itself does not change with the development of science. Therefore, the science established by paradigm has relative characteristics, and this point is admitted by Kuhn himself. On the contrary, Merton’s norms describe the ideal form of science, so the reality of scientific activities and the ideal form defined by is very different. Merton thought that the members of the scientific community should strive to achieve the scientific ideal form defined by norms.However, what makes the notion of paradigm and the notion of norm originally different from each other? This has something to do with the dichotomy between Kuhn and Merton’s understandings of human cognition. Kuhn believes that human beings’cognitive process is full of unpredictable factors that can affect the objectivity and the commonality of scientific knowledge. In another word, for Kuhn, there is no absolute objectivity and the commonality existed in the scientific knowledge. Meanwhile, he also believes that it is incorrect to use the concept of "reality" in scientific study. Science, by no means reflects the reality. Furthermore there are no crystal-clear goals for scientific study to pursue. The development of science is analogy to the biological evolution process. The scientific evolution deepens the human being’s understanding of nature and enlarges their ability to tackle with problems. From this perspective, Kuhn’s understanding of scientific development is pragmatic.Merton on the contrary sheds lights on the issue of sociological epistemology rather than the traditional objective epistemology. He believes that the subject of scientific understanding lies at a social system, and is affected by such social system. Merton regards the core of cognitive understanding as three-folded:the objective, the subjective and the knowledge. He strongly against the idea of dualism and the idea of absolute relativism. He also abandons the idea that the cognition is a direct reflection of the reality and not interfered with the social system, and he luuncr suggests mat reanty is a result constructed by society. Based on this, he eventually put forward an epistemological standpoint that adjusted by the social systems. However he does not articulate this idea too much, neither does he address the issue on how scientific understanding bears the characteristic of objective reality. Yet basically he believes that as long as the result of human understanding is certain, that is, scientific knowledge has objectivity and commonality. Whereas Kuhn believes that both the process and the result of the understanding are subject to relativity. Therefore we may conclude that the differences that paradigms and norms bear are rooted from Kuhn and Merton’s articulation of human understanding.