Maria de Nazareth Agra Hassan

As science progresses? The great theorist of the philosophy of science, Thomas Kuhn, the classic The Structure of Scientific Revolutions, contends that it advances by leaps, this is, does not progress by cumulative. He recognizes two kinds of science: normal science and extraordinary.

Kuhn investigates the concept of paradigm, a worldview that guides and structures the scientific investigations. The paradigm includes all: of the, the dominant theory, philosophical principles that she nearly, the methodological concepts and standardized.

Normal science is science day-to-day, scientist do that, plunged in its paradigm, discards all that its concepts can not solve. So, anomalies and novelties that come on your way up are eliminated in order not to undermine the foundations of the science model in which the scientist is inserted. Ultimately, the scientific community “search” under the dictates of their paradigm. It aims to frame him all phenomena facing. Those she can not fit, she disregards and follows in its daily modus operandi and repetitive.

However, the accumulation of defects, this is, problematic cases that the paradigm does not solve, eventually give rise to periods of crisis. As “anomalies”, by threatening the paradigm in its own grounds, are critical moments because the agreement gives rise to division, the formation of groups seeking other theories and other essentials. In this critical period, Kuhn gives the name of extraordinary science.

The change of a paradigm is a revolution, and science progresses only by paradigmatic revolutions, this is, synthetically: science progresses only when anomalies are remarkable, when they shake the normal scientist of his monotonous task and procedures within the closed paradigm. So, crisis, emerge an idea, a theory that will revolutionize science, Finally we will introduce, a new.

The relationship with the case of Conscientious Objection intended by Róber Bachinski is evident. Rober fez express yourself anomaly, this is, it represents the legion of students who become disenchanted with the courses they dreamed and thought with which to value life. Róber and it is a lot. Just see the amount of people that come leaving their testimonials on the websites that published the news of his victory in the injunction which guaranteed the right not to kill to study. Students who say they have given up because they sought to attend Veterinary save lives and learned how to make sausage. Wanted to save animals and learned to transform animals into human food with sanitary control.

Of course we are here in the field of education and not the science itself. However the teaching takes place within the dominant paradigm, and teachers are the normal scientists par excellence.

Everyone has had the experience of a teacher dared, creative, answering. But most of us know many teachers accommodated, repeaters semester half of the same class, same methodologies, even the same jokes when we are lucky to meet a humorous. As we also know colleagues who want to repeat, we want the world to follow and as always was, because it is more convenient and because they feel great study in the same booklet for parents and grandparents.

For parents and grandparents are teaching today too bothered. And his disciples, some, also. You can see the same sites listed before the level of these colleagues to express their discontent with the ruling. Focus away from the action to the plaintiff, trying to discredit him, offend. The amazing thing is that this decision does not affect, so it only guarantees the right of the student applicant not to participate in experiments that hurt his principles for the recognition of animal rights.

Róber is the anomaly of normal science. But look here, anomalia no sentido kuhniano, this is, it shows that the current paradigm is not realizing an ethical dilemma that is becoming more important. And this ethical dilemma begins to be representative of many. The Court recognizes. The Court finds articles on codes that support conscientious objection, this is, the right of a student to postulate replacing deaths of animals in practical classes. The society, through hundreds of NGO, mobilizes to defend this right. Ultimately, the crisis is established. For those who fail to understand the crisis as a driver of progress of science, the moment is serious, é luto. For those who conceive the crisis and the emergence of growing challenges that will lead to the heel of science, is time for celebration.

As normal science tries to fit into the paradigm phenomena facing, Also University (where they both studied Thomas Kuhn and which theorizes about aspects of moral life and diversity, otherness, diversity) Róber tries to frame the model of desensitization, which is called as the right not to call the suffering of others in the name of science.

It's time the old paradigm to the new place, a new model of science that takes into account the ethical objections that, Fortunately with regard to animal rights, present at the entrance of the XXI century. At least until the next crisis…

---

E-mail: naza@portoweb.com.br

Text already published on the website of the Group for the Abolition of Speciesism in Porto Alegre – GAE – http://www.gaepoa.org/