16 International Journal of Cultic Studies ■ Vol. 10, 2019
Furthermore, without core knowledge, a
discipline lacks a standard set of methods with
which to resolve conflicts. Perpetual conflict
exists between competing theoretical
formulations, and little or no theoretical growth
occurs (see Cole, 2001b, pp. 52–54 Kuhn, 2012,
p. 26).
Overview of Kuhn-Cole Argument
According to Kuhn (2012, pp. 10–11), a
paradigm is a scientific achievement that is
“sufficiently unprecedented to attract an
enduring group of adherents away from
competing modes of scientific activity ...[and]
...sufficiently open-ended to leave all sorts of
problems for the refined group of practitioners to
resolve.” Paradigms provide the foundation upon
which a particular scientific community furthers
its practice of normal science.
Following Kuhn, Cole argued that core
knowledge provides the basis of progress in all
sciences. Cole (2001b, p. 37) defined core
knowledge as “a small group of theories,
methods, and exemplars that are almost
universally accepted by the relevant scientific
community as being both true and important.”
With core knowledge, a discipline can define
which problems are doable, select problems
using cognitive7 criteria, and resolve conflict
between competing theoretical formulations
with reason and evidence as opposed to politics
or ideology. Cole (2001b, pp. 39–40) attributed
sociology’s lack of progress to the absence of a
core of universally accepted knowledge that
unites the discipline.
Cole (2001b, p. 49) argued, “research will
advance and accumulate most rapidly when
cognitive criteria are the most significant
influence on the decisions made by scientists.”
the brainwashing term when discussing various programs of social
manipulation. Countless topics would be interesting to research
(such as bureaucrats’ development of social-manipulation
programs in various periods of history), but limitations such as
sparse documentation and few if any bureaucrats’ accounts make
these projects undoable.
7 Our sources use the term cognitive to mean scientific. We deduce
that their idea of scientific (and hence cognitive) is of empirically
generated data acquired through the use of current instrumental
techniques, which address a widely agreed-upon theoretical
problem in the discipline.
In sociology, however, noncognitive factors,
such as personal experience and political
values,8 strongly influence problem choice and
the decisions made to achieve attempted
solutions. The selection of research problems on
the basis of noncognitive grounds leads
researchers to undertake undoable problems.
Kuhn (2012, p. 96) explained the relation
between problem selection and scientific
development:
Normal research, which is cumulative,
owes its success to the ability of
scientists regularly to select problems
that can be solved with conceptual and
instrumental techniques close to those
already in existence. (That is why an
excessive concern with useful problems,
regardless of their relation to existing
knowledge and technique, can so easily
inhibit scientific development.)
The conceptual and instrumental techniques of a
paradigm define a set of problems as doable.
Therefore, with paradigms, it is possible to
determine which problems are solvable. The
research problems “may have no intrinsic
significance other than their importance for the
theory of the paradigm” (Cole, 2001b, p. 49).
Natural sciences, which have highly developed
paradigms, progress because the problems
undertaken are doable, given the conceptual and
instrumental techniques of the paradigm.
Without highly developed paradigms, a
discipline is unable to determine which
problems are doable, with noncognitive criteria
leading researchers to attempt undoable
problems, and no theoretical growth occurs.
Kuhn (2012, pp. 11, 38–42) and Cole (2001b,
pp. 49–56) further argued that, with highly
developed paradigms, researchers within a
discipline agree on cognitive standards with
which to assess solutions to problems.
8 By noncognitive, our sources mean nonscientific and/or
nonempirical. We deduce that their idea of nonscientific (and
hence noncognitive) is of data acquired and/or used to advance
agendas that are personal or ideological (e.g., political, religious,
economic) and, hence, disconnected from a widely agreed-upon
theoretical problem in the discipline.
Furthermore, without core knowledge, a
discipline lacks a standard set of methods with
which to resolve conflicts. Perpetual conflict
exists between competing theoretical
formulations, and little or no theoretical growth
occurs (see Cole, 2001b, pp. 52–54 Kuhn, 2012,
p. 26).
Overview of Kuhn-Cole Argument
According to Kuhn (2012, pp. 10–11), a
paradigm is a scientific achievement that is
“sufficiently unprecedented to attract an
enduring group of adherents away from
competing modes of scientific activity ...[and]
...sufficiently open-ended to leave all sorts of
problems for the refined group of practitioners to
resolve.” Paradigms provide the foundation upon
which a particular scientific community furthers
its practice of normal science.
Following Kuhn, Cole argued that core
knowledge provides the basis of progress in all
sciences. Cole (2001b, p. 37) defined core
knowledge as “a small group of theories,
methods, and exemplars that are almost
universally accepted by the relevant scientific
community as being both true and important.”
With core knowledge, a discipline can define
which problems are doable, select problems
using cognitive7 criteria, and resolve conflict
between competing theoretical formulations
with reason and evidence as opposed to politics
or ideology. Cole (2001b, pp. 39–40) attributed
sociology’s lack of progress to the absence of a
core of universally accepted knowledge that
unites the discipline.
Cole (2001b, p. 49) argued, “research will
advance and accumulate most rapidly when
cognitive criteria are the most significant
influence on the decisions made by scientists.”
the brainwashing term when discussing various programs of social
manipulation. Countless topics would be interesting to research
(such as bureaucrats’ development of social-manipulation
programs in various periods of history), but limitations such as
sparse documentation and few if any bureaucrats’ accounts make
these projects undoable.
7 Our sources use the term cognitive to mean scientific. We deduce
that their idea of scientific (and hence cognitive) is of empirically
generated data acquired through the use of current instrumental
techniques, which address a widely agreed-upon theoretical
problem in the discipline.
In sociology, however, noncognitive factors,
such as personal experience and political
values,8 strongly influence problem choice and
the decisions made to achieve attempted
solutions. The selection of research problems on
the basis of noncognitive grounds leads
researchers to undertake undoable problems.
Kuhn (2012, p. 96) explained the relation
between problem selection and scientific
development:
Normal research, which is cumulative,
owes its success to the ability of
scientists regularly to select problems
that can be solved with conceptual and
instrumental techniques close to those
already in existence. (That is why an
excessive concern with useful problems,
regardless of their relation to existing
knowledge and technique, can so easily
inhibit scientific development.)
The conceptual and instrumental techniques of a
paradigm define a set of problems as doable.
Therefore, with paradigms, it is possible to
determine which problems are solvable. The
research problems “may have no intrinsic
significance other than their importance for the
theory of the paradigm” (Cole, 2001b, p. 49).
Natural sciences, which have highly developed
paradigms, progress because the problems
undertaken are doable, given the conceptual and
instrumental techniques of the paradigm.
Without highly developed paradigms, a
discipline is unable to determine which
problems are doable, with noncognitive criteria
leading researchers to attempt undoable
problems, and no theoretical growth occurs.
Kuhn (2012, pp. 11, 38–42) and Cole (2001b,
pp. 49–56) further argued that, with highly
developed paradigms, researchers within a
discipline agree on cognitive standards with
which to assess solutions to problems.
8 By noncognitive, our sources mean nonscientific and/or
nonempirical. We deduce that their idea of nonscientific (and
hence noncognitive) is of data acquired and/or used to advance
agendas that are personal or ideological (e.g., political, religious,
economic) and, hence, disconnected from a widely agreed-upon
theoretical problem in the discipline.
