In fact * only * skeptical papers stand the rigor
of normal science exactly due to biased peer review against them, yet they still get published.
As soon as I read the comments of defenders of the trick, I knew this was not
normal science as the vast majority of scientists practice it.
Once something is started and the experiments are working, then that becomes, in a proper sense,
more normal science, where one can proceed according to principles that are well understood.
On a parallel track, Post
Normal Science called for «Democracy», which has been interpreted as meaning politicians, bureaucrats, NGOs and representatives of some «Developing Nations», but not the average citizen.
Thereby they guide the direction of normal research, which is «an attempt to force nature into the preformed and relatively inflexible boxes that the paradigm supplies».18 Like solving a puzzle or playing a game of chess,
normal science seeks solutions within an accepted framework; the rules of the game are already established.
Here Kuhn's revised picture of
normal science allows for considerable diversity within a scientific community — including the presence of rival small groups and competing «schools of thought».
«During
normal science mapping, we make measurements between an altitude of about 150 km and 6,200 km above the surface,» explains MAVEN's principal investigator Bruce Jakosky, who is based at the University of Colorado's Laboratory for Atmospheric and Space Physics in Boulder.
Normal science challenges the assumptions, but the IPCC worked to prove it was causing global warming (and, latterly, climate change).
It might or might not involve «Faith» because some advocates of the Believers» revered Post
Normal Science even further define themselves as essentially being able to «Speak Directly With God» in order to deliver unto all of us the «Given Truth».
’28 Kuhn's portrayal
of normal science as dominated by unchallenged dogmas, his failure to specify criteria for paradigm choice, and his talk of «conversion» and «persuasion» all seem to these critics to threaten the objectivity and rationality of the scientific enterprise.
Criticisms of «
normal science».
Kuhn's portrayal of the authoritarian character of
normal science has also been challenged.
Normal science, says Kuhn, consists of work within the framework of a paradigm which defines a coherent research tradition.
Normal science is more diverse and more self - critical than Kuhn recognizes.23
Nevertheless Kuhn still maintains that the most fruitful strategy of
normal science is to develop and exploit the prevailing tradition, extending its scope and accuracy; the examination of assumptions and the search for alternatives, he holds, seldom occurs except during major crises.31
Margaret Masterman, «The Nature of a Paradigm»; K. R. Popper, «
Normal Science and its Dangers»; P. K. Feyerabend, «Consolations for the Specialist»; all in CGK.
I don't know if I am misrepresenting Rupert by saying he is taking a lot of
normal science, and space and time, and pushing in what he calls formative causation.