Scientific paradigms

The phenomenon of rape has been studied from a myriad of different scientific standpoints, in turn yielding numerous theoretical perspectives, interpretations, and findings. Evolutionary psychologists (e.g., Buss, 1989; Thornhill & Thornhill, 1990a) understand rape as a male adaptive sexual strategy, and view sexual desire as a central motivation, while feminist theorists (e.g., Brownmiller, 1975) conceptualize rape as a means to exert power and control by men over women in the broader sociocultural context of male supremacy and female oppression. Script theorists (e.g., Ryan, 1988; Simon & Gagnon, 1986), on the other hand, view rape as a social by-product resulting from the adherence to sexual, dating and rape scripts, all of which are culture specific. The purpose of this paper is to explore and discuss rape-oriented research from the three different theoretical perspectives briefly outlines above.

The paper discusses the four scientific paradigms as contributors and constraints to the development of strategic communication. It commences with a delineation of strategic communication as a field and concludes with the future of the paradigmatic development of strategic communication.

This paper explores the philosophical underpinnings of three major educational research paradigms: scientific, interpretive, and critical. The aim was to outline and explore the interrelationships between each paradigm’s ontology, epistemology, methodology and methods. This paper reveals and then discusses some of the underlying assumptions of educational research. Consequently, this paper is relevant to every English language teacher who is a reader of research.

Seguiremo all’inverso KUHN [1970], il cui indice generale sarà invertito. Se Kuhn dalle rivoluzioni giunge alle caratteristiche della conoscenza scientifica, dalle caratteristiche della conoscenza scientifica noi giungeremo ad accennare appena l’evento-rivoluzioni. Il perché sarà ampiamente motivato nella trattazione. Tuttavia, già da ora, occorre esplicitare quanto segue: si parla di conoscenza, e non di conoscenze scientifiche. È un distinguo epistemologico che il lettore dovrà sottolineare. E la ragione è bene esporla subito, onde evitare ambigui fraintendimenti.
Indagare sulla conoscenza, impone un’esposizione articolata e approfondita sull’attività del conoscere. Questa attività è l’oggetto di indagine. In realtà, paradossalmente, occorre ammettere che, purificando sempre più tale attività dalle incrostazioni speculative più invadenti, emergerà chiara e distinta un’esigenza teoretica: non è possibile considerare l’oggetto come oggetto puramente materiale; l’oggetto, in realtà, è un soggetto, sebbene non logicamente. L’indagine sull’attività conoscitiva è indagine sul soggetto conoscente: i due ambiti non possono essere scissi nettamente. Si apre, già nelle premesse, il conflitto fra epistemologia e le pseudoscienze, in particolare la sociologia e la psicologia. Possono quest’ultime fornire un contributo nell’analisi del progresso della conoscenza scientifica? Ancora una volta: il progresso è epistemologico-filosofico o storico-sociale? Le difficoltà maggiori, in corso d’opera, hanno condotto a queste domande, accettando la sfida kuhniana a riscrivere il suo pensiero in ordine inverso. È emersa, limpidamente, la particolarità indiscussa dell’attività scientifica: essa non è mai squisitamente individuale, tantomeno perciò solo materiale. È il singolo scienziato ad elaborare teorie e a condurre esperimenti e ad accogliere o escludere osservazioni fenomeniche. Tuttavia, il sostrato teorico e socio-psicologico che costituisce la sua attività normale, quotidiana, è più che determinante e, sorprendentemente, determinato. Occorre allora chiedersi quali elementi distinguano l’attività scientifica da altre imprese conoscitive e pratiche. Per quali vie procede questa attività: teoriche o pratiche?

Batı sosyolojisinde nicel ve nitel saha araştırma metodlarının (1) u-zun süren önemli tartışmalara konu olduğunu biliyoruz. Bu tartışmaların öylesine uzun geçmişi vardır ki, bilim olarak sosyolojinin ortaya çıkışından sonraki yıllara kadar dayanır. Aslında tartışmalar halen de devam etmekte­ dir; ama, eski şiddeti de kalmamıştır. 1960'larla birlikte Kuhn'un ortaya koyduğu, 'sosyal bilimlerde tek paradigmanın hakimiyeti yerine birden fazla yarışan paradigmaların bulunduğu' gerçeğinin geniş kabul görmesi ile paradigmatik mücadele durulmuştu. Zamanımızda her iki metod arasındaki işbirliği konusu, sosyolojide metodolojinin gündeminde önemli bir yer tut­ makta. Artık sadece işbirliği imkanlarından söz edilmiyor; hemen hemen bütün sosyal bilimlerde bu işbirliğinin nasıl olacağı konusunda çeşitli ki­ taplar yazılıyor. Bu tür yayınların, yaklaşık son yirmi yıldan beri giderek arttığını görüyoruz. Bu ilgi sadece sosyolojide değil, diğer sosyal bilimler disiplinlerinde de yoğun bir biçimde yaşanıyor. Bugün, bize ayrılan sürenin elverdiği ölçüde, iki saha araştırma metodu arasındaki farklılıklar ve işbirliği üzerinde durmak istiyoruz. Konu birbirini bütünleyen iki amaçla ele alındı. Tebliğin ilk amacı, Türkiye sosyolojisi için aslında çok gecikmiş olan bu konuyu gündeme ge­ tirmektir. Konunun batı sosyolojisindeki tarihçesini dikkate aldığımızda gerçekten epey geç kaldığımızı söyleyebiliriz. Nicel yöntemin egemenliği­ ne rağmen kendisine yavaş yavaş sağlam bir yer açmaya çalışan nitel yön­ teme, özellikle daha genç kuşağın giderek artan bir ilgi duyduğu görülü­ yor^). İkinci amaç ise nicel ve nitel yöntemi, metodolojileri ve dolayısıyla paradigmaları içinde incelemektir. Aralarında yüzeysel karşılaştırmalar yapmak yerine, her bir metodu kendi zihinsel atmosferi içinde anlamaya ve açıklamaya çalıştık.Böylece karşılaştırmanın, nicel ve nitel araştırma yön­ temlerinden birinin mutlak üstünlüğü ile sonuçlanmasını gerektiren, dikotomik mantığın 'siyah-beyaz' dayatmasından kurtularak yeni ve farklı zihinsel ufukları görebilme şansımız artmış oldu. Zira metodlar, kendi para­ digmaları içinde anlaşılmaya çalışılmadıkça, sağlıklı bir işbirliğinin kurul­ ması mümkün olamayacaktır.

ÖZET Bildirinin konusu, bilimsel paradigma ile üsî-küîtür sistemi yani medeniyet arasindaki ilişkidir. Bilim anlayisi olarak da adlandırabileceğimiz paradigma; bilimin ne olduğuna, nasil yapilmasi gerektiğine ilişkin ve bilim insanları toplulugunca benimsenmiş bir dizi önkabullerdir. Bunlari üç grupta toplayabiliriz: Bilimin konusu olan gerçekliğin dogasina dair ontolojik, edinilmek istenen bilgiye dair epıstcmolojik ve bilgiye nasıl ulaşılacağına dair metodolojik sayiltilar. Varligin dogasini açiklayan ontolojik kabul, diğerlerinin ana kaynagidir. Bugün bilimdeki gelişmeler ile varligin dogasina ilişkin bilimsel bilgilerimizin artmis olmasina rağmen sayiltilar metafizik olma özelliklerini korurlar. Insanlik tarihinde farkli medeniyetler 'varligin yapi tasinin ne olduğu' sorusuna üç farkli cevap vermiştir: Madde, ide ve madde-ide içiçeligi. Bunlar geniş anlamda bilimin sosyo-küîtürel baglamidir. Bilim söz konusu olduğunda üç ontolojik sayilti sirasiyla pozitivisit, fenomenolojik ve bütüncül / yeni bilim paradigmasini oluşturmuştur, ilk ikisi karsitlik mantigina, sonuncu ise bulanik mantiga dayanir. Bildirinin amaci, bilimdeki gelişmelerin sunduğu gerçeklik tasarimi ile madde-mana iç içeliginin birbirini beslediğine dikkat çekmek ve kültürümüzde kendiliğinden var olan bu önkabulün bilim insanlarina verimli açilimlar sunduğuna işaret etmektir. Anahtar Kelimeler: Bilimsel paradigma, ontoloji, epistemoloji, metodoloji, medeniyet, pozitivizm, yeni bilim, bütüncül bilim, sistemler bilimi, sosyolojik bağlam. ABSTRACT The subject of this paper is to analyze the relations bervveen scientifıc paradigms and sociological contekxt. A paradigm is a series of axioms appropriated by scientifıc community on what science is about and the \vay of doing it. Ontological axioms on the nature of reality, epistemological axioms on the knowledge of that reality to be appropriated and methodological axioms on how it to be appropriated. Since the dawn of humanity different civilizations have given three different ansvvers to the questions concerning the essence of existence: As matter, as idea, and as matter-idea interpenetration. As science is concerned these three ontological axioms, i.e., matter, idea and matter-idea interpenetration, have given way to three different paradigms, that is, positivistic, phenomenological and new science paradigms. The fırst two paradigms are based on dichotomic logic vvhereas the new science paradigm is based on fuzzy logic. Dealing with the subject within this context, the purpose of this paper is to into attention that developments in science and matter-idea interpenetration has gone hand in hand leading to the reality of new science paradigm.

Eje temático elegido: Derecho y Lenguaje Título de la HDD: Inconmensurabilidad en los Paradigmas del Derecho Cuando Thomas Kuhn público su célebre "La Estructura de las Revoluciones Científicas" (1962) la Filosofía de las Ciencias nunca fue igual. Conceptos de la sociología y la historia comenzaron a poblar un área que parecía ya un área de juego cuasi exclusiva del Positivismo Lógico. De las nociones creadas por Kuhn, es la de "Paradigma" la más analizada por otros autores y la más definida por el propio autor. Pero quedémonos con la definición que fue esbozada en las primeras líneas de Las Estructuras: "Realizaciones científicas universalmente reconocidas que, durante cierto tiempo, proporcionan modelos de problemas y soluciones a una comunidad científica" (KHUN, 1971, La Estructura de las Revoluciones Científicas: 13). Para Kuhn, una ciencia alcanza madurez cuando la comunidad casi en pleno comparte un único Paradigma. La ciencia avanza acumulando conocimiento dentro del Paradigma establecido; pero cuando este no resiste las anomalías que se presentan al mismo, se da una "Revolución Científica" que establece un nuevo Paradigma en la Comunidad, desplazando al anterior y guiando el avance hacia otros caminos. Entra en este momento el interesante concepto de "Inconmensurabilidad" de Kuhn, el cual plantea que no hay posibilidad de "traducción" de los conceptos y prácticas de un Paradigma A y uno B. Solo puede intentar "interpretar", o aprender a "hablar" en el lenguaje de otro Paradigma, siendo así un científico bilingüe quien lo logra. Pero, como se dijo, los paradigmas científicos son inconmensurables, y los practicantes de uno u otro no pueden "comunicarse" correctamente entre ellos. Todos estos conceptos fueron pensados por el norteamericano para el estudio de las Ciencias Duras, pero no son pocos los científicos sociales que aun intentan tomar sus ideas y aplicarlas a sus disciplinas. Dejando de lado una incrustación total de los conceptos kuhnianos a la Epistemología Jurídica, nos parece interesante analizar si existe una inconmensurabilidad entre los Paradigmas convivientes y pasados en el Derecho. Sabemos que en el Derecho es casi imposible encontrar un Paradigma Hegemónico, siendo que el área de trabajo esta compartida por pensadores que se encuadran dentro del Iusnaturalismo, Iuspositivismo, Critica, Interpretativismo, Realismo, y tantas otras dicotomías, escuelas o ideologías que plagan el panorama. ¿Son entonces los estudiosos del Derecho "Poliglotas" en lo que Paradigmas refiere? Veo interesante la posibilidad de que existan Teorías en las ciencias que sean verdaderamente Inconmensurables, que como en las matemáticas, los conceptos de ambas tengan la ausencia de un factor común para ser expresado. Y más aún desde la visión de Kuhn, que va más allá de la que expresara Paul Feyerabend que mantenía a la Inconmensurabilidad en un plano semántico. Kuhn la amplió hasta campos prácticos como son la formulación y solución de problemas en una Comunidad que ejerce un Paradigma. Cierto es que esto parece difícil de hallar en el Derecho, y que los aires de familia son muchos en los mundos semánticos y prácticos de cada Paradigma Jurídico. Esto quizás resulta en que las Teorías Jurídicas si sean traducibles en conceptos que cuadren en las lógicas de Paradigmas Antagonistas. ¿Podemos pensar en Paradigmas Jurídicos como lenguaje y práctica? ¿Pensar al Iusnaturalismo, al Iuspositivismo, y a cualquier sub-paradigma que se nos ocurra como una maraña de lenguaje y prácticas científicas Inconmensurables entre sí? ¿O puede haber existir un dialogo común "traducible" entre Paradigmas Rivales en el Derecho? ¿Tiene todo esto utilidad epistemológica en nuestra área?

Fr. Kappen identifies the present era as the age of re-colonization in which humans and nature are colonized by global capitalism. This unholy system is supported physically by the atomic weapons of S&T and ideologically by the Christian Ungod. Kappen focuses on the present cultural paradigm and proposes a counterculture, replacing the Ungod with the Divine.

The article illuminates the philosophy of the Toltecs, based on the evolving human consciousness. The ancient practices allowed for the warrior-Toltec to expand his consciousness. Then he could “see” and realize the transcendental realities, thus they cease to be illusions, unreal and fantasies.
        The author puts an accent in the article on the “flying creatures” (voladores) that are described by the Nagual-mystics as beings feeding on human consciousness; that is accordingly the reason why the human mind could comprehend only the 3D reality. The human population has forgotten its spiritual nature due to the lack of energy and consciousness and developed an aggressive way of living. The cosmic energies emanating after 2012 will influence the human consciousness by allowing it to change its perceptions and remember its cosmic origin.

Health care research includes many studies that combine quantitative and qualitative methods. In this paper, we revisit the quantitative-qualitative debate and review the arguments for and against using mixed-methods. In addition, we discuss the implications stemming from our view, that the paradigms upon which the methods are based have a different view of reality and therefore a different view of the phenomenon under study. Because the two paradigms do not study the same phenomena, quantitative and qualitative methods cannot be combined for cross-validation or triangulation purposes. However, they can be combined for complementary purposes. Future standards for mixed-methods research should clearly reflect this recommendation.

The way an army thinks about and understands warfare has a tremendous impact on its organization, training, and operations. The central ideas of that understanding form a nation's way of warfare that influences decisions on and off the battlefield. From the disasters of the War of 1812, Winfield Scott ensured that America adopted a series of ideas formed in the crucible of the Wars of the French Revolution and epitomized by Napoleon. Reflecting American cultural changes, these French ideas dominated American warfare on the battlefields of the Mexican-American War, the American Civil War, the Spanish-American War, and World War I. America remained committed to these ideas until cultural pressures and the successes of German Blitzkrieg from 1939 - 1940 led George C. Marshall to orchestrate the adoption of a different understanding of warfare. Michael A. Bonura examines concrete battlefield tactics, army regulations, and theoretical works on war as they were presented in American army education manuals, professional journals, and the popular press, to demonstrate that as a cultural construction, warfare and ways of warfare can be transnational and influence other nations.

This text explores the ways in which the depiction of scientists as characters in science fictions can be seen as contributing to the ethical formation of scientists and engineers, arguing that this in turn plays a role determining the future progress of science. Overall, the aim of the paper is to suggest that science fiction's representation of the social and human dimensions of science is at least as important as its radical scientific speculations for the progress of science and scientific ideas.

A long and uneven process of stabilization was implemented by normal sciences and disciplinary traditions, in order to maintain and institutionalize the antinomies that were a distinctive mark of the reason, which permeated the State. Therefore these antinomies become evident in the process of accumulation of knowledge, which, far from being purely contemplative, is at work within the very body and structure of the State. The task we must undertake today is to forsake normal science and put to the test, each by each, the categories, which were discovered, perfected and polished to serve the construction and confirmation of the paradigm. In particular the essay shows that the consolidated form of representation of the political world and its relationship with the State overshadowed all the problematic aspects connected to the modern paradigm. It points out at the figure of sovereignty, at its rather multiple and complex public incarnations. In fact, as the root and essence (if one may say so) of the modern state, this figure evokes all the antinomies that traverse the whole history of democracy . It also encourages a comparative reflection upon the statute of subjectivity and individuality, within the frame of an ever-difficult relationship between science and ethics, a relationship that was once mediated by the juridical discourse, and was later destructively resolved by a philosophy of values. Indivisibility, identity (as opposed to the alterity of what lies in the outside) and irresistibility are the common features shared by the different figures of subjectivity. These were the figures Hobbes chose to draw in his impressive effort to reconstruct on scientific bases the cosmos, which the crisis of the European mind had broken into pieces. The modern subject inseparably bears the attributes of individuality and sovereignty and we may say that the State (similarly to the status) functions as a (spatial) metaphor, within which and through which modern subjectivity is shaped and constructed. Ultimately, the “space of the sovereign”, which has been the focus of the close reading of Hobbes’s text proposed by the essay, is the space of the individual, understood as the principal target for the action of modern political culture. The connection between individuality and sovereignty is one of those features of the paradigm that were obscured by the disciplinary traditions of the sciences of the state. Such obscuration led, in our opinion, to complex and problematic consequences for the whole “narrative” of history, which was later provided by European and Western liberalism.

How do scientific disciplines evolve? This is one of the fundamental problems of the dynamics of science. This study confronts this problem here by investigating the evolution of experimental physics, which plays a vital role for the progress of science in society. In particular, the main aim of this article is to analyze the structure and endogenous processes of experimental physics to explain and generalize, whenever possible, the properties of the evolution of applied sciences in the phase of continuous expansion of the universe of science. Empirical analysis here suggests the following properties of the dynamics of science: (a) scientific fission, the evolution of scientific disciplines generates a process of division into two or more research fields that evolve as autonomous entities, creating new disciplines of scientific specialization; (b) ambidextrous drivers of science, the evolution of scientific disciplines by scientific fission is due to scientific discoveries or new technologies; (c) higher growth rates of the scientific production are in new research fields of a scientific discipline rather than old ones; (d) average duration of the growth phase of scientific production in research fields is about 80 years, almost the period of one generation of scholars. Overall, then, this study explains, whenever possible, the relationships that support scientific change of disciplines to develop comprehensive properties of the evolution of science directed to economic, technological and social progress.

Two central tenets of the algorithmic paradigm are:
(1) All proofs can be understood as algorithms, with input corresponding to assumptions and output to conclusions.
(2) All functions are given by algorithms.
We discuss how things look from the algorithmic paradigm and discuss the pressures to expand beyond it.

Rankings have become a major form of quality assessment in higher education over the past few decades. Most rankings rely, to varying extent, on bibliometric indicators intended to capture the quantity and quality of the scientific output of institutions. The growing popularity of this practice has raised a number of concerns, one of the most important being whether evaluations of this sort treat different work styles and publication habits in an unbiased manner and, consequently, whether the resulting rankings properly respect the particular modes of research characteristic of various disciplines and subdisciplines. The research reported in this paper looked at this issue, using data on more than one hundred U.S. sociology departments. Our results showed that institutions that are more quantitative in character are more likely to favor journals over books as the dominant form of scientific communication and fare, in general, considerably better on the National Research Council's assessment than their qualitative equivalents. After controlling for differences in publication practices, the impact of research style declined but remained statistically significant. It thus seems that the greater preference of qualitative departments for books over articles as publication outlets puts them at a disadvantage as far as quality assessments are concerned, although their lagging behind their quantitative counterparts cannot fully be explained by this factor alone.

Marc Bloch, in his The Historian’s Craft, refers to the constitution of historical knowledge as a task requiring language precision, to be developed somewhere
between the rather pedestrian conception of science of French late nineteenth-century academic historians and the established view of history as a literary art. Bloch’s
proposal justly places the problem of historical knowledge within the converging
relation of reason and experience. The matter may be enlightened by recalling the
forms of such relation through the development of modern science – mainly the
experimental science of man covered by the newtonian paradigm. Above all, the
newtonian approach to historical knowledge seems compatible with the evidential
paradigm recently associated to historiography.

Health care research includes many studies that combine quantitative and qualitative methods. In this paper, we revisit the quantitative-qualitative debate and review the arguments for and against using mixed-methods. In addition, we discuss the implications stemming from our view, that the paradigms upon which the methods are based have a different view of reality and therefore a different view of the phenomenon under study. Because the two paradigms do not study the same phenomena, quantitative and qualitative methods cannot be combined for cross-validation or triangulation purposes. However, they can be combined for complementary purposes. Future standards for mixed-methods research should clearly reflect this recommendation.

Health care research includes many studies that combine quantitative and qualitative methods. In this paper, we revisit the quantitative-qualitative debate and review the arguments for and against using mixed-methods. In addition, we discuss the implications stemming from our view, that the paradigms upon which the methods are based have a different view of reality and therefore a different view of the phenomenon under study. Because the two paradigms do not study the same phenomena, quantitative and qualitative methods cannot be combined for cross-validation or triangulation purposes. However, they can be combined for complementary purposes. Future standards for mixed-methods research should clearly reflect this recommendation.

The existence of two massive theoretical anomalies, regarding the contemporary science’s photon/light phenomena based paradigms, was irrefutably proven in Brauns (2021) through two thought experiments. Both anomalies prove that a photon cannot inherit any photon source’s velocity vector component, in whatever direction. Both anomalies thus falsified (Popper’s falsification principle by revealing the existence of irrevocable and insurmountable anomalies) the contemporary science’s, moreover irrationally direction exclusive, photon source’s velocity inheritance principle. The latter is applied by contemporary science in multiple contemporary paradigms (e.g. Michelson and Morley, light clock). The findings in Brauns (2021) (in particular Fig. 12 in Brauns, 2021) thus also clearly falsify the contemporary science’s Equivalence Principle paradigm in the case of photon/light phenomena. The representation of the lateral effect MF in Fig. 12 in Brauns (2021) initiated the design of a straightforward laser experiment to experimentally confirm that predicted lateral effect MF. The experiment benefits from our planet’s superb experimental conditions. This publication is a straightforward follow-up publication of Brauns (2021): the discussed laser experimental results indeed fully confirm the findings, revealed in Brauns (2021). The experiment thus fully confirms the falsification, resulting from Brauns (2021), of also e.g. the Michelson and Morley so-called null-result paradigm, the light clock paradigm and the Lorentz contraction equation paradigm.

The existence of two massive theoretical anomalies is demonstrated through two straightforward thought experiments. Those anomalies make it clear that photon’s trajectory models, based on contemporary light paradigms, become unacceptably inaccurate during fundamental research. Contemporary science still considers, as an accurate paradigm, “light” to travel in space as a “ray of light” (“beam of light”, “laser beam”). This simplistic and inaccurate model was used by Michelson and Morley in their world famous fundamental experiment, the latter still being considered as a prime contemporary paradigm. It is however a fact that any “light” signal consists of a vast collection of individual photons. At any specific moment in time, during its travel in space, each individual photon is located in its individual location in space. The modelling of the “trajectory” of a collection of photons, through an extremely simplistic “ray-of-light” concept then results in the two massive theoretical anomalies. The latter two thus fully falsify, as a Karl Popper’s type of strong “falsification by anomaly”, the “ray of light” paradigm. They also clearly prove that it is impossible for a photon to inherit any of the velocity vector components of its source. Consequently, they thus also falsify numerous other contemporary, light based, paradigms.

This paper uses the example of the discovery of the weak neutral current in the mid-1970's as a case study to argue against the Kuhnian notion of incommensurability between scientific paradigms.  More specifically, the paper shows that, although the Weinberg-Salam model was indeed ontologically incommensurable with the Vector-Axial model that preceded it, it was neither methodologically, epistemically, nor linguistically incommensurable with its predecessor.  In fact, the paper argues that the sort of global incommensurability discussed by Kuhn undermines the possibility of actual paradigm shift in this and in most other scientific cases.

Together with many recent innovations in science and technology, we have witnessed some paradigmatic changes in science, which enables us to understand the world. The positivist paradigm of science, which was adopted as the sole research approach in the Age of Enlightenment, based on an understanding grounded in reason and observation in the search of a fixed reality, was alternated by the interpretivist paradigm, which advocated that no single truth exists, reality is interpreted and constructed rather than discovered (Glesne, 2013; Yıldırım & Şimşek, 2011). The nature of science is used to refer to “the epistemology of science, science as a way of knowing, or the values and beliefs inherent to the development of scientific knowledge” (Abd-el-Khalick, Bell & Lederman, 1998). That is, nature of science means what people understand from the word science. With this paradigmatic shift it has become an issue to answer such questions as What is science or scientific knowledge? How does one achieve scientific knowledge?, which enables us to inquiry the nature of science and understand its significance. Therefore, it was found worth investigating the paradigms of university students attending to physics, chemistry and biology departments at the faculty of science and letters, where an intensive education about basic science is offered, and preservice science teachers attending to the faculty of education, who are provided with an educational content covering all three disciplines together. The main purpose of this study is to investigate the paradigms of the senior students attending to physics, chemistry and biology departments at the faculty of science and letters and senior students at attending to the science teaching department. Thus the study was designed as a qualitative phenomenology. In phenomenology studies define what it means for individuals of their lived experiences regarding to a concept or phenomenon (Creswell, 2007). The participants of the study were 125 senior students selected according to criterion sampling approach from Science Teaching department (n=72) of Faculty of Education at İnönü University, and Physics (n=5), Chemistry (n=26), and Biology (n=22) departments of Faculty of Science and Letters at İnönü University during 2014-2015 academic year. In phenomenology studies a sample of participants who are experienced with the phenomenon and can share their experiences with the researcher with ease can be accessed (Creswell, 2007). In the present study, the criterion was to have experiences with the phenomenon of science. Therefore, senior students at the departments of chemistry, physics, biology, and science teaching departments considering that they had already completed the basic science courses in their curriculum. Among the participants 93 were females and 31 were male, with one participant uninformed about his/her gender. The data about the paradigms of the participants about the phenomenon of science was collected with four open-ended questions: “1. How do you define the term science?”, “2. What is scientific knowledge?”, “3. What are the ways of achieving scientific knowledge?”, “4. How do you define the characteristics of a scientist?”. The answers were obtained in the written form. The obtained data have been entered into Nvivo10 qualitative analysis software program and currently being analysed. The findings will be presented and discussed after the analysis are completed.