We are living in an era that has evolved in many aspects starting from the way we interact with the way we reason as far as some matters are concerned. It has become a reality also that the things we use have also evolved. Day by day we have new and strange inventions that are meant to ease our daily life and simplify the almost everything that surrounds us. All these changes can be traced back to the concept of science where the mind gets to venture into new ideas and concepts as well as hypotheses to make them a reality. Science by definition is branch branch of study or knowledge that deals with the body of facts that are systematically arranged to show the general operation of the laws (online dictionary, Merriam-webster). This field uses the ordinary senses to come up with new inventions after thorough investigations and test. This paper talks about the two sciences, the usual and the revolutionary science. It also shows why the distinction is of importance as well as the criticism that accompanies it. It has always become a problem to distinguish between the two because it is like we have a uniform method of approach to science. The revolutionary science depends on the proper science as we shall see.
Standard science concept was first coined by Thomas Khun in 1962 in his book called the structure of science revolution (thwink.org). He as well came up with a cyclic model to show how the field of science had evolved over the which he dubbed the Khun cycle. In the circle, there are five stages namely model drift, model crisis, model revolution, paradigm change and finally the normal science also known as the prescience (thwink.org). In short, the normal science is based on the past achievements of science that are not developed as compared to the present. An example of the touring achievements is the Newtons natural principles and Darwins origin of species. These concepts have been used to build on the current scientific concepts (thwink.org). Normal science has been for existence for ages now since it is the basis of all the scientific inventions with only modification to better it Joel Feinberg (33).
On the other hand, contemporary science is a sudden modification of the normal science but primarily based its advancement on the normal science (thesaurus.com). It is marked with the use of laboratories and other modern ways of investigating on given data or solving some problems that arises in the society. The concept is assumed to have originated from the Middle English region and the late Latin region of the world (thesaurus.com). The major scientific advancement that we see and interact with is the real manifestation of the revolutionary science. For instance, the electric kettle, the radiotherapy machines amongst other things. This advancement has made the life of humankind so easy, unlike the early days. But the bottom line is that the revolutionary science base its work on the normal science, Joel Feinberg (35). Revolutionary science has gone under a lot of modification with new ideas cropping in from the old ones, therefore, leading to increased sophistication in the gadgets of the new technological era.
Presently, every sector has incorporated the revolutionary science in their operation, and more inventions are still coming up. For instance, the field of medicine has machines for treating cancer that actually uses the concept of the effect of head and electromagnetic waves. This concept is primarily from the normal science. The field of warfare has also incorporated the use of drones to perform surveillance operations as well as launching attacks. Primarily the drones operation utilizes the concept of pressure, thermodynamics among other concepts that trace their roots to the normal science.
The importance of giving the distinctions between the two concepts of science is major to understand how the field of science has evolved in the history of mankind. It also shows that we can start small in our endeavours and advance exponentially towards realizing certain goals that we have. The five cycles in the normal science can be used as an analogy to show that when doing something sometimes we need to go through the required steps to achieve it and at some point skipping a given action might result in missing out the mission that we have in solving a particular problem or coming up with a particular thing.
This distinction at some point may be unwarranted in the sense that the level of technology at the moment is so much advanced that it sometimes become pointless to trace the origin of an entire concept. For example, the use of sophisticated machines in various fields today does not require one to have the basic idea of its origin once they have known and mastered the concept of its operation. It becomes pointless to go through the whole procedure when the use of the machine is what is required. Furthermore, it will be like wasting time especially when the necessary task the machine is required to perform is promptly needed Joel Feinberg (37).
We have seen the distinction between the normal science and the revolutionary science. The standard science being the past and primary ways of coming up with ways of solving problems. It dates back to several years back. On the other hand, the revolutionary science is the present scientific methods that use modern methods of solving problems. It is based on the standard science. We have also seen the importance the distinctions as well as the criticism of the distinction. We can conclusively say that the revolutionary science by all means depends on the proper science because, without the normal science, the revolutionary science could have not existed.
Joel Feinberg (2014), Reason and Responsibility: Reading in some basic problems of philosophy, 13th edition.
Science defined by Merriam-Webster, retrieved from http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/science
Sustainability problem. normal science, retrieved from http://www.thwink.org/sustain/glossary/NormalScience.htm
Thesaurus.com, definitions revolution, retrieved from http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/revolution
Need a paper on the same topic?
We will write it for you from scratch!
If you are the original author of this essay and no longer wish to have it published on the SpeedyPaper website, please click below to request its removal:
- Mini-Management Plan
- Louis Armstrong Essay
- Organization Culture and Police Misconduct
- Solving Personal Problem
- Factors Affecting Enterprise Innovations in Companies
- Social Progress: Science and the Individual
- The Supreme Court as the Final Arbiter in the Interpretation of the Constitution
- College credit
- Philosophy of leadership in education
- Dementia with Lewy Bodies
- Strategic Planning at the Chronicle Gazette
- Social Media and Rhetoric: Annotated Bibliography