The Structure of Science?

How does science work? And what's all this about quantum mechanics?

Moderators: AMod, iMod

Post Reply
coberst
Posts: 9
Joined: Thu Nov 01, 2007 9:56 pm

The Structure of Science?

Post by coberst » Thu Jan 15, 2009 11:05 am

The Structure of Science?

The main philosophical problems of modern society are intimately associated with Tom and Jane’s enchantment with Science. Normal science is, for too many, an enchanted idol that is perceived as the savior of humanity. No matter what dastardly things humans may do, Science will save us.

Science—normal science—as Thomas Kuhn labels it in “The Structure of Scientific Revolutions” moves forward in a “successive transition from one paradigm to another”. A paradigm defines the theory, rules and standards of practice. “In the absence of a paradigm or some candidate for paradigm, all of the facts that could possible pertain to the development of a given science are likely to seem equally relevant.”

The Newtonian scientific paradigm was a mathematical, quantified, pattern capable of reducing reality to an atomic level. It’s ideal, if there was one, was man as a machine or more likely a cog in a machine. In such a science we lose the individual man and woman. Rousseau was offering something entirely different. It was holistic and non-reducible. It was a gestalt that included man as neutral manipulator of scientific experiments but also as a subject with values who was a totally thinking, feeling, free agent.

“Rousseau showed that morality had to be instrumented, by man according to an ideal formulated by him; the science of man could only have meaning as an active ideal-type of science.” Newtonian paradigms left no room for such and ideal. It had no room for a holistic woman or man. The solution proposed by Rousseau was to make humanity first and science second; science was to be the servant of wo/man rather than wo/man as the servant of science.

The paradigm of Newtonianism turned out to be a tougher nut than the Enlightenment could crack. Such individuals as Darwin and Spencer appeared on the scene and quickly humanity was sequestered again into the background by Science. Dewey’s long life time proved insufficient to the challenge and the reason why: “pragmatism contained no moral criteria by means of which a man-based value science could be instrumented.”

Marx recognized the problem inherent in scientism and shifted ground from Rousseau’s ideal-type to the possible-type. Marx said that we should do what is possible and possible in our time. Marx advocated the victory of the laboring class.

“What are the main problems of modern society; how can man’s situation in the world be improved?” Marx determined that the Newtonian paradigm was morally unedifying; the social problem was the alienation of man. But with Marx the ideal vision of the Enlightenment was swallowed up in the Revolution. The ideal of a full and free liberation of the human potential was destroyed in the Revolution.

And therein lay the rub. What is a paradigm of normal science as Kuhn so succinctly wrote about and which, as a concept, was unrecognized in Kuhntonion form a century ago, but was nevertheless, even then, the heart of normal science.

Kuhn says that practitioners of normal science have: a paradigm that makes a science normal when most if not all members agree upon a theory as being true. When this agreement breaks down then a new paradigm is agreed upon. The paradigm defines a map for action. The thing that separates a paradigm from some kind of, green light and red light group agreement about crossing the street is that there is more careful control, calculation, instrumentation, and a greater willingness to place before the world a conjecture to be evaluated as to its truth. A paradigm defines the theory, rules, and standards of practice.

It seems that almost all domains of knowledge wish to emulate Science. Science for most people is technology and if questioned we would probably find that science means physics. We have placed Science on a very high pedestal because technology has been so successful. Every domain of knowledge wishes to be as good as Science.

I suspect that the way to judge how well a domain of knowledge is like science is to discover if it does or does not have a paradigm. Like Kuhn notes in his book that without a paradigm any knowledge is as good as any other. Paradigm converts chaos into system.

Many of the ideas and quotes in this OP are derived from Ernest Becker’s book “Beyond Alienation”. Me and Ernest agree that the “main philosophical problem for modern society” is that we need a paradigm for the “science of wo/man”. Have you a paradigm for this new science? Me and Ernest do but we disagree on some aspects.

User avatar
Rortabend
Posts: 261
Joined: Wed Jan 16, 2008 11:36 am
Location: Cambridge

Post by Rortabend » Thu Jan 15, 2009 11:18 am

Science—normal science—as Thomas Kuhn labels it in “The Structure of Scientific Revolutions” moves forward in a “successive transition from one paradigm to another”.
This isn't quite right. Normal science is what happens between paradigm shifts. The normal science period is characterised by consensus and puzzle solving. Paradigm shifts are revolutionary episodes when fundamentals get called into question.

coberst
Posts: 9
Joined: Thu Nov 01, 2007 9:56 pm

Post by coberst » Thu Jan 15, 2009 8:16 pm

Rortabend wrote:
Science—normal science—as Thomas Kuhn labels it in “The Structure of Scientific Revolutions” moves forward in a “successive transition from one paradigm to another”.
This isn't quite right. Normal science is what happens between paradigm shifts. The normal science period is characterised by consensus and puzzle solving. Paradigm shifts are revolutionary episodes when fundamentals get called into question.
I agree with your comment but I still think my statement is also correct.

bus2bondi
Posts: 1012
Joined: Fri Aug 29, 2008 3:08 am

Post by bus2bondi » Thu Jan 15, 2009 9:38 pm

hi coberst, i've been asking some of the same questions lately.

coberst
Posts: 9
Joined: Thu Nov 01, 2007 9:56 pm

Post by coberst » Fri Jan 16, 2009 12:57 pm

bus2bondi wrote:hi coberst, i've been asking some of the same questions lately.

Judge a man by his questions rather than by his answers.
--Voltaire (1694-1778)

User avatar
Jean
Posts: 16
Joined: Sat Dec 13, 2008 7:51 am

Re: The Structure of Science?

Post by Jean » Fri Jan 16, 2009 4:28 pm

coberst wrote:Me and Ernest agree that the “main philosophical problem for modern society” is that we need a paradigm for the “science of wo/man”. Have you a paradigm for this new science? Me and Ernest do but we disagree on some aspects.[/b]
Gender analysis of language, maths, science... is not cracked-out?

http://www.physics.nyu.edu/faculty/soka ... efile.html

If you don't get it, see here,

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sokal_affair

philofra
Posts: 114
Joined: Thu Oct 18, 2007 12:43 pm

Post by philofra » Sat Jan 17, 2009 9:01 pm

coberst: "I suspect that the way to judge how well a domain of knowledge is like science is to discover if it does or does not have a paradigm."

Doesn't a domain of knowledge always have a paradigm, some kind of paradigm? Otherwise, it could not be known.

"Like Kuhn notes in his book that without a paradigm any knowledge is as good as any other. Paradigm converts chaos into system."

So do theories convert chaos into systems.

I am thinking of the atomic bomb and when it was use on Japan to end the war. The paradigm then was very different from the one that exists now towards nuclear weapons. Then, the atomic bomb was view as justifiable. Today it is looked upon as an unthinkable weapon or as a deterrent.

User avatar
Necromancer
Posts: 350
Joined: Thu Jul 30, 2015 12:30 am
Location: Metropolitan-Oslo, Norway, Europe
Contact:

Re: The Structure of Science?

Post by Necromancer » Wed Nov 01, 2017 8:57 am

Having formerly written about "Against Thomas Kuhn and His Paradigms", I have this update:

Case in Point #2: Swinging stone in ancient Greece vs. pendulum in Renaissance Italy

Relating to Aristotle and Galileo by Kuhn and SSR, p. 118 - 125 and the difference of a swinging stone and the pendulum.

Aristotle: 384 BC - 322 BC, seeing a swinging stone, I guess, by chain or thread.
Galileo: 15 February 1564 - 8 January 1642, seeing the pendulum.
The difference between them: roughly 2000 yrs.

So, by Cumulativism, if we have 2000 years between 2 people and suppose a "revolution" as Galileo considers the pendulum I'd like people to think again because that's 2000 years of engineering history as well.

Let's list some factors for these 2000 years of engineering history:
* Measurements - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_measurement
* Accuracy and precision - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Accuracy_and_precision
* Technological ability to manipulate objects (i.e., tools and more) - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Technology - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tool - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Renaissance (for "simple machines")
* Development of mathematics - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_o ... l_European

Important people between Aristotle and Galileo:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Euclid
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jean_Buridan
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nicole_Oresme
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leonardo_da_Vinci

So it proceeds from the factors above that a "revolution" hardly can be noted over the course of 2000 entire years and with the advance of the factors above.

Orderly: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pendulum.

For comparison, one can note that difference in weaponry as well, in telling a story of engineering:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_weapons
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dardanelles_Gun
The rise of the guns, the arquebus and the musket for the sake of crafting balls as ammunition and calculating range of the weapon - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Musket#Europe

History of metalworking:
http://www.hackingtheuniverse.com/scien ... talworking

Also reiterating some common factors to the development of Astronomy:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Printing_ ... ting press
"The printing press spread within several decades to over two hundred cities in a dozen European countries. By 1500, printing presses in operation throughout Western Europe had already produced more than twenty million volumes. In the 16th century, with presses spreading further afield, their output rose tenfold to an estimated 150 to 200 million copies. The operation of a press became so synonymous with the enterprise of printing that it lent its name to an entire new branch of media, the press."

With the printing press we also get a growing number of universities:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_m ... iversities and so on.

Aristotle: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aristotle
Galileo: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Galileo_Galilei

"Thus the press/media reports an ongoing revolution by transition from a swinging stone to a pendulum for 2000 years."

From my blog: https://whatiswritten777.blogspot.no/20 ... kuhns.html where there is also the no. 1 Case in Point against SSR by Kuhn.

Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest