‘Science Textbooks’
Thomas Kuhn observes, “even from history, that new concept will not be forthcoming if historical data continue to be sought and scrutinized mainly to answer questions posed by the unhistorical stereotype drawn from science texts. Those texts have, for example, often seemed to imply that the content of science is uniquely exemplified by the observations, laws and theories described in their pages. Almost as regularly, the same books have been read as saying that scientific methods areas imply the ones illustrated by the manipulative techniques used in gathering textbook data, together with the logical operations employed when relating those data to the textbook’s theoretical generalizations.” The incorporation of unhistorical data in the scientific textbooks is ironic. The unhistorical stereotypes results in the incongruities concerning the oversimplifications arrived at in the scientific textbooks. Scientific ambiguities would not be convenient in assembling the history of scientific innovations. Considering that science related to inventiveness and originations, the blatant paradoxes should not be apparent in scientific texts.
“Additional Research”
Thomas Kuhn illustrates, “few historians of science have been finding it more and more difficult to fulfil the functions that the concept of development-by-accumulation assigns to them. As chronicles of an incremental process, they discover, that additional research makes it harder , not easier , to answer question like: when was oxygen discovered? Who first conceived of energy conservation.” Supplementary research would have alleviated the development of answering queries concerning the signposts of scientific inventions. Nevertheless, the irony demonstrates that ‘ accumulation of the individual discoveries and inventions’ is not the unqualified progression of resolving all the unanswered scientific questions. The irony explains the ubiquitous discordancy of beliefs regarding various scientific discoveries.
