在「典範」下的常態研究，為何有能力提出「新理論」？

How Can “Paradigm”−Driven Normal Science Create “New Theories”?

有些人認為重覆學習舊知識對科學教育沒有好處，有害創造力。但是在《科學革命的結構》一書的第六章，孔恩提出了一個有趣、對於現代科學教育的策略有指導性的問題：「明明常態科學並不企圖發現新東西，但是在典範的指導下進行研究，為什麼能有效的發現新東西？」孔恩以歷史案例來說明：「先察覺異象，然後了解異象，最後導致典範變遷」；或是由認知科學論述「新奇現象出現得十分困難，它以抗拒來呈現自己」。這樣的結論只是將發現新事理的過程重述一遍，並沒有回答典範能促進新發現的原因。要解答這個問題，「時間」可能是個關鍵。就個別研究人員來說，依循「典範」可以集中注意力，去除背景雜訊，增長特定物被觀看的時間，因而讓異常現象被發現的機率增加。「典範」的演繹蘊涵切割問題的方法，讓問題變小，任務焦點明確。就社群來說，切割問題可以避開需要事先掌握大量資訊的困難，降低先備知識的門檻。在分工之下，當參與的人多了，觀看、凝視特定的現象的總次數增多，將會提高發現異常的機率。透過「典範」來思考問題有益於聚焦在觀察項目上，因此得以發現異例，創新知識。落實在科學教育上，舊典範裡的知識內容就不只是一種過時的東西，被動的等待被推翻而已。讓學生演練常態科學本身，就富有促進創新的效益，而值得鼓勵。 There is debate in science education about whether repeat learning of old knowledge may exert a general negative effect on creativity. In the 'Structure of Scientific Revolutions', chapter VI, Kuhn, T. raised an interesting question, which may have implication in science education. It is said that normal science does not aim at novelties of fact or theory and finds none. New and unsuspected phenomena are, however, repeatedly uncovered by scientific research, and radical new theories have been invented by scientist. Kuhn explained this puzzle with historical examples combining knowledge of cognitive psychology that novelty emerges only with difficulty, manifested by resistance, against a background provided by expectation. This explanation is not satisfactory to me that it only reiterates the processes of discovery without adequate reasoning. A better answer for the Kuhn's question, I believe, should include time factor. The mind sets of paradigm severe as guidelines to divide problem. On one hand, it allows individual researcher to focus on specific topic, remove background noise, and prolong the observation time on particular target that consequently increase the chance to identify anomalies. On the other hand, it avoids difficulties in need of immense amount of information and thus lowers the threshold of research. By ways of cooperation, the more people participate in, the longer work on a particular phenomenon, the higher chance to identify abnormality. Consequently, doing paradigm-driven normal science is an effective way to uncover new theories. Implementing this idea in science education, the standard knowledge of old paradigm is not just out of fashion and to be abandoned. Taking practice in normal science may stimulate student to get new idea and promote innovation.

There is debate in science education about whether repeat learning of old knowledge may exert a general negative effect on creativity. In the 'Structure of Scientific Revolutions', chapter VI, Kuhn, T. raised an interesting question, which may have implication in science education. It is said that normal science does not aim at novelties of fact or theory and finds none. New and unsuspected phenomena are, however, repeatedly uncovered by scientific research, and radical new theories have been invented by scientist. Kuhn explained this puzzle with historical examples combining knowledge of cognitive psychology that novelty emerges only with difficulty, manifested by resistance, against a background provided by expectation. This explanation is not satisfactory to me that it only reiterates the processes of discovery without adequate reasoning. A better answer for the Kuhn's question, I believe, should include time factor. The mind sets of paradigm severe as guidelines to divide problem. On one hand, it allows individual researcher to focus on specific topic, remove background noise, and prolong the observation time on particular target that consequently increase the chance to identify anomalies. On the other hand, it avoids difficulties in need of immense amount of information and thus lowers the threshold of research. By ways of cooperation, the more people participate in, the longer work on a particular phenomenon, the higher chance to identify abnormality. Consequently, doing paradigm-driven normal science is an effective way to uncover new theories. Implementing this idea in science education, the standard knowledge of old paradigm is not just out of fashion and to be abandoned. Taking practice in normal science may stimulate student to get new idea and promote innovation.