Naturalizing Epistemology

Thomas Kuhn identified an essential tension between conservative and innovative approaches in the development of knowledge. Should we stick with the tried-and tested paradigm which guides enquiry in a particular field? Or should we strike out in new directions to improve out understanding? Kuhn pointed out that these two attitudes are both appropriate. At times of crisis in the development of knowledge, a bias in favour of innovation might be appropriate. During periods of 'normal science', a more conservative approach will predominate. The 'essential tension' is the balance between these attitudes, but Kuhn insists that both are and should always be represented in the community of enquiry. This Kuhnian picture is itself not as familiar as it should be; Kuhn studies were preoccupied for decades with other issues. What the current study adds to this picture is an account of the underpinnings in individual and social psychology of the balancing of these two attitudes. Under what conditions will individuals be motivated to adopt an innovative attitude? Under what conditions will individuals working together on a paradigm be motivated to share their dispersed information relevant to the project of enquiry defined by that paradigm?