back to Molecular Biology Homepage

back to Homework Page

Here are some examples of full-credit student answers. Criteria for full credit included demonstrated comprehension of the article (and question) and clear articulation of the answer.

1. In your own words, explain the two essential functions that dogma plays in science, according to Kuhn. Limit your explanation of each function to 2-3 sentences.

Answer #1: One function of dogma according to Kuhn is that it allows scientific theories to be articulated and expounded upon. Without rules or borders with which to investigate nature it would be almost impossible to make any substantial headway in finding the "truth" about our surroundings. Another function that dogma plays in science is to allow new discoveries to be made. As existing theories are being researched, discrepancies can be noticed and perhaps new theories developed from these anomalies. These theories would probably never come about if it weren't for the existence of the old paradigm.

Answer #2: The first essential role of dogma according to Kuhn is as a set of rules for scientific discovery. Humankind's commitment to earlier preconceptions laid the groundwork for future discoveries. Kuhn compares the scientist to a chess player and says the dogma provides him or her with the "rules of the game being played in his time." Kuhn's second essential role of dogma in science is as a "detector of trouble spots" from which modern scientific discoveries are made. Dogma gives a scientist a discerning eye that can locate inconsistencies in current modes of thinking. According to Kuhn, this is what leads to discovery.

2. What do you think is the public's conception of science? (If you think there are many, choose one that you feel is prevalent.) How is it different from Kuhn's conception? Why do you think this difference exists? Limit your answer to 4-6 sentences.

Answer #1: The public views science as a field constantly in search of the truth in which no subjectivity is involved. Scientific experts are often seen endorsing products, as the public considers them to be impartial and analytically accurate in what they espouse. Kuhn sees scientists as people looking for answers to the hypotheses they have proposed. The more difficult and lengthy the search for the answer becomes, the more a scientist is inclined to fit his/her observations to the answer looked for. The difference between the two views of science exists because Kuhn has a vantage point from within science, while the public only hears of the results that science produces and the impeccable scientific method used to attain such glorious results.

Answer #2: I think that recent public opinion of science has been, in many cases, one of awe or perhaps even fear. I believe this may be in part due to recent developments in areas like gene therapy and cloning; there is a sense that science is accelerating too fast for the consequences to be assessed. Kuhn does not really address this, but he does make the point that science in an age of paradigm rarely produces highly unexpected experiments or results. The whole idea of a paradigm limits the kinds of experiments that will be conducted. By this reasoning, recent experiments in gene manipulation are not strange and unexpected "Frankenstein" projects, but rather a natural progression towards the accumulation of more knowledge within the paradigm of the "almighty gene theory" of nature. That is not to say that we aren't treading on uncharted moral ground, but perhaps it should be recognized that paradigms of ethics also change over time.

3. (ungraded, 2 pts) What did you think of this article? Did it surprise you? Did it cause you to think about science in a new way? Do you agree with the author's contentions?

top of page

back to Homework Page

back to Molecular Biology Homepage