I really like Polanyi's line in the section 2 about the fact that “there exists no rule for making fresh discoveries or inventing truer conceptions, and hence there can be no rule, either, for avoiding the uncertainty of destructive analysis” (54).  He then relays the story of the cotton spinner and the scientist, which reminded me of the “discovery” of pulmonary circulation by William Harvey–butchers at this time were well aware that if they severed an artery, the animal would bleed out significantly faster than if they cut a vein.  They, of course, did not now the physiological difference between arteries and veins, nor did they know why one exsanguinated the animal faster than the other.  It really goes to show that we can learn both by observing and by practicing.  It’s amazing to me how intertwined these types of learning are, and I doubt one can have a “full knowledge” of the subject without learning about and understanding the ways in which it operates.  Based on this quote, I wonder what Polanyi would think of Kuhn’s take on how rules work within a paradigm (namely, that there has to be some set of guidelines that dictate what is and isn’t acceptable for research in normal science).

Later on in section 5, Polanyi explains the difference between subsidiary and focal awareness.  The first thing that came to mind when I read this was throwing a ball in water polo.  I am ambidextrous, but I started learning polo skills with my right hand.  Once I had the fundamentals down, I could adjust my arm or body position in the water in order to make a better pass, and I didn’t have to think about what I was doing (subsidiary awareness).  When I injured my right shoulder and had to stop using it for a while, I started to use my left arm for throwing and turning.  It was challenging because I knew exactly what position I needed to be in, but I had to pay much more attention to actually move into that position.  I didn’t know why my body wasn’t moving like I knew it should, just that it wasn’t.  If I could just learn by observing, then I should have no issue throwing with my left hand, yes?  But obviously, that is not all there is to it, and Polanyi addresses this when he brings up art–the student must learn from the teacher by observing, but also by doing/imitating their actions.

The questions I had running through my mind throughout this chapter were essentially answered in section 8: how can we apply the concept of subsidiary vs focal awareness to less tangible things?  Going back to Kuhn, this resembles how normal science works within a paradigm; we learn some of its rules and then we use those assumptions to guide our research.  When we perform experiments, we exist within the realm of the paradigm, and we see the world through that lens.  The paradigm would be our subsidiary awareness (though we do not always realize the biases that our paradigms present), and the hypothesis we are testing would be the focal awareness.  Am I correct in comparing the two this way? 

Polanyi states that “indefinable knowledge is an essential part of technology,” that there is a sort of art to it, that not all of any piece of technology or a tool can be fully explained by science. And I agree that for most of human history and still today that it is often the case. The idea of trade knowledge precedes understanding for example the art of smelting metal existed long before we understood what was going on, but there was this tacit, unspoken knowledge that was passed down from generations, it was more of an art. He also gave the example of the glass blowing machine that worked in Germany but its exact counterpart in Hungary could not produce a flawless piece. But as we move today into a much more technoscience world, does this still idea still apply? If we understand the science and then make technology out of the scientific understanding, does is still sum up to something more than the science behind it? Or by switching the order here do we somehow take something away from our use and experience of it?

Where do Polanyi and Kuhn contrast with each other in their view of scientific paradigms and revolutions, and how does Polanyi view progress compared to Kuhn? One of the opening statements that Polanyi makes is that “science is operated by the skill of the scientist and it is through the exercise of his skill that he shapes his scientific knowledge” (51), this is comparable to Kuhn’s normal science, but it also implies that this normal science shapes his knowledge whereas Kuhn believes that the paradigm lays out the rules and directions and normal science is how you get to the end that is already known.

Another point that I thought was interesting is when he says, “to learn by example is to submit to authority… these hidden rules can be assimilated only by a person who surrenders himself to that extent uncritically to the imitation of another” (55) this view works well with Kuhn because for example, as students we learn from the textbooks, and what we are told by the people teaching us. Without being consciously aware of it, we submit to authority and tradition; Polanyi goes on to say that the “sciences rely on the transmission of skills and connoisseurship from master to apprentice” (57). With these comparisons, it can be easily seen how Polanyi and Kuhn agree on the transmission of science.

I am also wondering how the use of tools and focal versus subsidiary awareness comes into play in Kuhnian theory. Because Polanyi compares focal and subsidiary awareness to the Gestalt switch and Kuhn says that paradigm changes are like a gestalt switch, but the things you are looking at are completely different.

In chapter 4; Skills. Polanyi starts by making an emphasis in the concept or idea that science is operated in the skills of the scientists and is throughout practice that they gain the knowledge.  “the practice makes a master” is basically what I am getting from the chapter but my question is if Polanyi’s argues that “science is operated by the skill of the scientist and it is through the exercise of his skill that he shapes his scientific knowledge” how does one acquired scientific knowledge if for that you need experience? He also brings out the idea that in order achieve a “skillful” performance by observing a set of rules but, those rules are not actually known by the person how is aiming to do a skillful performance, and that is similar to what Kuhn’s view is trying to portray with the only difference that with Kuhn’s view scientists are certainly predisposed to the rules because they know them and the follow them according to what has been thought to them by their teachers. He emphasises on the idea that rules can become handy and help as a guide but only if they can be integrated into the practical knowledge yet it cannot replace it. I agree with it but, as Kuhn says; the rules and theories establish a paradigm, and he also says argues that Scientifics usually have the foundations of their mentors. I am not sure if I understand where does Polanyi stand regarding the roles rules play in a skill? Because, he later, talks of how there is not rules to make new discoveries.  Polanyi also points out that; “the apprentice unconsciously picks up rules of art, including those which are not explicitly known to the master himself”; it is hard for me to understand what it his position in terms of rules.

Is a pianists touch a real thing? It certainly seems like it is, yet we can’t come up with an explanation as to why or how the sound differs. The note played should sound the same no matter who plays it, and yet, it doesn’t. This is a good example of the limits of modern scientific thinking. A pianists touch clearly exists, we can hear it, but there is no physical explanation for the different sound. Perhaps there is knowledge that cannot be gained through the scientific method (observation, analysis, etc), but which can only be gained through experience Science likes to reduce everything to physical phenomena. For example, your emotions are simply a physiological response to stimuli, your genes decide who you find attractive and your brain releases hormones into your bloodstream, and that is all that love is. Perhaps a pianists touch is evidence that humans, and the world in general, do not run as machines; that there IS something more to being alive and the human experience than the physical world.

What is gained through practice is more understanding than could ever be obtained through studying a book. You can know all the technical theory of how to swim, study fluid dynamics, understand the correct arm placement and breathing patterns to optimize flotation or speed. But even though you know how to swim, do you really know how to swim? Does a scientist who studies the way people move through water know how to swim better than a 10 year old who won the gold at a provincial swim meet? There is something in the experience that gives you a knowledge you cannot obtain from simply studying without participating.

It is easy to see the knowledge gained though experience when talking about a skill such as playing piano or swimming. But what about general knowledge? The Marys’ room thought experiment asks this very question. Mary is a scientist who studies color. She knows that the different wave lengths of light correspond to different colors, and how the receptors in the back of our eyes get stimulated by these wavelengths and send electrochemical signals to the brain to interoperate them. She knows everything there is to know about color, but she was born completely color blind. Even though she’s the expert on it she has never actually seen color. One day she is miraculously cured, and sees a bright red apple. Has she gained any knowledge about color? If the experience affects what we can know, how do we know our experience is accurately portraying the way things really are?

Michael Polanyi and Kuhn seem to agree on the perception for a paradigm, but each describes it in slightly different way. For Polanyi it seems to be more about tradition, in that the way you are brought up or your tradition often alters the way you see things, or your experiences of things. Whereas to Kuhn the paradigm alters the way you think about things. My question then is does Polanyi believe that process is possible? Or is he similar to that of Kuhn in that progress is not possible.  He would seem to fall under the Kuhn way of thinking; however some of his stories got me thinking he could possibly fall either way. While in one aspect he appears to say it isn’t possible, is that the apprentice learns from the master, and to learn is to “submit to authority” (pg. 55). This would appear to follow Kuhn’s thought process in that you must immerse yourself in the paradigm in order to do natural science, as the apprentice could not do the work without believing unequivocally what the master was teaching. However the other example given, the one of riding the bike makes me think to some extent progress is possible? To me when I learned how to ride a bike, it wasn’t like I just suddenly knew how to ride it, there was a training process, where I got pushed by my parents and they let go of the bike and you learn to pedal, before falling because your safety net is gone. However usually you go from training wheels, to maybe one side with training wheels, to being held while riding to finally doing it on your own. Does this mean that Polanyi would agree with Kuhn’s notion of progress or would he actually decline it and say progress is possible? Another example of this would be the progress of the doctor in connoisseurship. The doctor must hear the accentuation of the sound enough times that he can recognize it as a problem without fail. However as he learns would he not progress into learning what he is looking for, and eventually be able to learn to identify it? So essentially my question is does Polanyi believe that progress is possible?