Scientific Paradigms are NOT true

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

Moderators: AMod, iMod

User avatar
Aetixintro
Posts: 319
Joined: Tue Jan 08, 2008 7:44 pm
Contact:

Scientific Paradigms are NOT true

Post by Aetixintro » Wed Nov 11, 2009 12:36 pm

Kuhn is going down! Argument developing against Kuhn. (This is "imported" from http://forums.philosophyforums.com/ where it can be found in the Phil. of Science section with the same title. It has been posted there Sep 20, 2009 01:28 PM.) :)

The object of this thread is clear. It's to make an argument against Kuhn. Kuhn is going down! My projection is that I'm going to be alone in this, but you are welcome join me or criticise my attempt or my possibilities to do so, essentially pointing out why Kuhn is such a classic. I have a few articles of Kuhn in my "Philosophy of Science - The Central Issues" by M. Curd and J. A. Cover, publ. by W. W. Norton & Company, 1998 (damn, it's an old book) and I've bought Kuhn's The Structure of Scientific Revolutions, 3rd ed. Alright, here we go!

Nail #1: It's clear to me that if the Paradigms of Kuhn are supposed to be true, they have to be logically equivalent. I believe Kuhn states that one isn't able to choose rationally any Paradigm, you are more or less drawn into one by all sorts of strange reasons whether they be feelings, social connections or what. You have this Ptolemaic System. Is this supposed to be equivalent to Einstein's Theory of Relativity or Copernicus' Heliocentric Worldview? It's obvious they are not equivalent. It's also obvious the various worldviews hold different cognition based on different assumptions and observations. Let me add the technological development that has made extensions to our eyes, like the Hubble telescope.

Nail #2. It's therefore established that these K. Paradigms are "chosen" or chosen relatively closely temporally. In this, one first problem is to come up with something at all. Each of these is also building on assumptions of concepts, models - theories, and underlying, historical work whether this is mathematics, (naive) remarkable discoveries, development in technology such as telescopes, magnifying glass, general thinking of what reality should be, ie. conceptualisation and speculation. Maybe we get 2 or 3 "Paradigms" to choose from. As these Paradigms are considered, elaborate testing is going on, perhaps coming up with something. (more?)

Nail #3. Today, what are our options in choosing from paradigms? We have perhaps these 2 or 3 theories in quantum physics. I sense that scientists are well aware they may be wrong! This means competition is open. We can't certainly begin to doubt observations in space and come up with a different astronomical worldview. We have to say that technology nails something for us. Again I point to advances in other fields that are not actually considered by these scientists in this paradigm.

(This is where Kuhn is going down!) Conclusion: We have this giant landscape in science (2009) where advances happen all over. Scientists are connected by the internet to exchange agreements, thoughts, and differences of opinion. They are probably expecting new technology and checking for relevant work done elsewhere on Earth and ISS, all-other-wise. There are, I guess, numerous problems in science currently that are being investigated like the dualism of photons and what have you. Then, it's impossible to determine any single paradigm because everything is interconnected and is developed in unison everywhere. It's impossible to make an incision around particular efforts as a consequence. The "community" lives and dies together. Besides, as I see it, today, most disagreements are theoretical and thus not subject to empirical testing. How is Kuhn doing? I think he looks bleak! (more?)

Thoughts, anyone?

How can you point to the concept of paradigms if there's no content in them? I believe Kuhn is indeed successful in explaining what he means, that the concept is meaningful, but wrong, in my opinion. Yes?

Btw, in the case of the Paradigm of Einstein's Relativity, shouldn't one acknowledge both Einstein and Riemann on it? As I've pointed out, it's impossible to make a "jump" in time and come up with our science, let's say, 500 years ago or 2500 years ago. This should be blatant and clear! I thereby come up with a second conclusion, that we are in effect "climbing a mountain, science-wise" or "scaling that Babel's tower, science-wise". I think I can say that we know that back in time, people have been more wrong or less objective than we are today, but this may have been necessary! It can't be said definitely, but the scope of the development through history lies there. A new theory of evolution, science-wise?

When I use the word "truth" in connection with paradigm, I mean of course that it's the concept of paradigm that's supposed to be true. I must be crazy if I say that the Ptolemaic worldview is supposed to represent truth, I mean of course, the paradigm.

One of my arguments here is that technology may be the whole engine of cognition and scientific progress. Does it matter to consider paradigms if the Ptolemaians have not had the chance, i.e. aids to see with, the corroboration of observations, to make the cognition that are required to become Copernicans (I may have left out some mathematics here and more). So you seem to have skipped the argument of the technological requirements of scientific progress. If it's technology that makes scientific happen, does it make sense to call it a paradigm? It's obvious that technology represents the inter-subjective.

Can you truly say that our future scientific progress doesn't have a broad inter-subjective, "objective", character in that everyone will recognise the right theory to believe in because it's technology that will decide those beliefs?

So all in all, I think it's better to see science as a whole doing gradual advances in the light of the development of "assumptions of concepts, models - theories, and underlying, historical work whether this is mathematics, (naive) remarkable discoveries, development in technology such as telescopes, magnifying glass, general thinking of what reality should be, i.e. conceptualisation and speculation". All science is broadly based therefore only the scientist-spearheads make the mistakes while cognition of the best alternative is inevitable. If this isn't in disagreement with Kuhn then nothing is!

I also note that scientists are well aware they may be wrong! Isn't this counter to Kuhn who is asserting that scientists are blind when they are in a paradigm and that they die with it. Because the scientists die (of old age and whatever) who are driving the paradigms, new paradigms emerge. Is this the case today? I think not. I fail to see that Kuhn is happy with underlying, historical work in explaining his paradigms. I try to disagree with Kuhn in every way, yet you think what I write is very Kuhnian. Very funny!

I can't say nail #3 is addressed at all. You begin to write about the different phases in Kuhn's system while I try to establish cognition as a function of history, especially in the sense of technology with writing "we have to say that technology nails something for us." This aspect is wholly uncommented! I believe it's clear that technology isn't subject to paradigms. Yes?

In your last quote, you mix me up with Banno. When I answer Banno I only think of the concept of "paradigms", nothing more. Is this hard to understand?

I will study Kuhn more and bring quotes and better aimed attacks addressing these quotes. I'll try to shed the Kuhnian about my writing as clearly as possible. Cheers!

A thought strikes that is already implicit, but I say it. Kuhn can really be accused of crudeness in creating the paradigms because he's ignoring those processes leading to the paradigms in sufficiently thorough terms. Call my assumption contextualism or what you want, but it's derived from "assumptions of concepts, models - theories, and underlying, historical work whether this is mathematics, (naive) remarkable discoveries, development in technology such as telescopes, magnifying glass, general thinking of what reality should be, ie. conceptualisation and speculation". As Kuhn fails to deal with these processes properly, his argument of paradigms is an illusion. I will follow up on what I write, but this thought has been pressing.

Note: Some people may point out that some paradigms happen as a function of "accidents" or unforeseen events. I'm thinking of penicillin or whatever, but I want people to have in mind that these investigative people have been through education and what (Einstein is a Ph.d. when he comes up with the relativity theory, not that it is an accident) and are usually in the process of rigorous research. These people, like Sir Alexander Fleming, are extremely attuned to pick up remarkable events. I don't think any such possible situation is weakening my attack on "paradigms", Kuhn's book. This is so because they are building on that foundation of assumptions that is historically set. I don't deny there are excellent scientists, but they are a part of history, "standing on the shoulders of giants". See Nail #2 in post #1 in this thread!

Natural kinds seem to be somewhat uncertain on their fundamental level. Natural kinds also go for the substance while I go for "natural laws, not more defined than that as structures of nature in their totality". I'm thinking of Kant when he asserts that Newton gravity is part of the mind's ways. smiling face
I have the sense that I may be able to provide a set of axioms while natural kinds have a hard time doing this(?). I may have looked at natural kinds some time in the past and found it weak. Perhaps I should look again. Anyone who'll try Natural Kinds?

First, quickly, I'm absolutely not arguing for independence of technology from theory. This would be extremely foolish! It's obvious that technology relies on theory, but sometimes it may be a lot more pragmatic than f.x. a theory in astronomy or cosmology. The point is still the interconnectedness in all of science, more or less! As such, these considerations may not be new, but I've yet to see anyone making a good case for it, ie. historiography of science, an actual work published digitally or at least in paper, (multi-volume) book. Are we clear?

Necessarily, my attack on Kuhn includes that scientific revolutions and paradigms are considered pop-culture. The truth is that advances in science are gradual and progressive. At least, the data collected is clearly cumulative and perhaps corrected. It should be exciting to see what levels on can achieve in micro- and macro-scopes in the sciences.

Concerning nail #1, I have to admit that I'm wrong in equalling the paradigms regardless of time. Let me quote
Kuhn from SSR, 3rd ed., chapter 9, p. 96: wrote:
Quote: ...After the pre-paradigm period the assimilation of all new theories and of almost all new sorts of phenomena has in fact demanded the destruction of a prior paradigm and a consequent conflict between competing schools of scientific thought...
If I find more of these instances I'll quote them too.

User avatar
Aetixintro
Posts: 319
Joined: Tue Jan 08, 2008 7:44 pm
Contact:

Re: Scientific Paradigms are NOT true

Post by Aetixintro » Sun Nov 15, 2009 6:07 am

More work done, taken from my website, http://www.t-lea.net/philosophical_notes.html:
The amount of data is in every matter considered independently of "paradigm" or phase of history of science you're in. If our perception of gravity changes significantly, it's no more gravity. It's something else. That is, it's the data that guide us in making appropriate concepts and descriptions. This may be seen as causal, but I think it represents something else. The word "gravitare" means to attract or so and it fits nicely the observation we have of seeing things fall to the ground. It sounds basic and I'll try to look for a better example or two.

From SSR 3rd ed. p. 96 about Normal science and cumulation: Quote: "Normal research [as opposed to outside the specific paradigm], which is cumulative, owes its success to the ability of scientists regularly to select problems..." I think Kuhn mentions a number of times that in his theory, Normal science is cumulative. This is opposed to my view that science is overall cumulative in the data gathering.

As such, if it's only "normal science" that is cumulative then it should be indeed possible to claim that "paradigms" are equal in standing because previous gathering of sense-data and speculation are obsolete in Kuhn's language. This is abruptly wrong in my opinion. One only needs to look to the steady progress of technology to get a clue of this. Not only that, but I've made it a main point that science very much interacts with technology. Technology is, as we all know, just a different expression of science that is worked out in other fields than where it's applied, typically in the scientific experiments in this regard and usually decisively so.

Are the data thrown out? No! In the experiments that are taken to support the Caloric-theory, there are inaccuracies. These inaccuracies lead to misinterpretations and to the faulty conclusion. I think, if we carry out the experiments today in the same way they have been then, we should get the same data as in the past. Obviously, we look at those data very differently now than back then. We are probably able to identify where they have gone wrong and how the set of data may be corrupt or at least inaccurate. At times, I find that Kuhn isn't separating between the generation of experimental data and the inferred theories thereof. Rather the correct view should be that all sorts of experiments generate a data bank of past experience. If the experiments have been carried out correctly in the past with that technology and accuracy of the time then it's just to repeat them and we get the same data over again. Past experiments are inter-subjective or objective within the boundary of what they have available at that time. We continually use this history to position ourselves for the future, not to repeat ourselves.

Concerning the Ptolemy astronomy versus the Copernican astronomy. There are still these factors that may have contributed to the progress possible. One should have in mind that this is a period of 1300 years:

1. Increasing number of astronomers and people contributing to astronomy.

2. The formalisation of specific educational training of astronomers.

3. Increasing observation gathering incl. increasing documentation of observations, perhaps also more accurate.

4. The printing press is developed some 150 years ahead of Copernicus, further making his library of astronomy actual.

There you have it. Has this been included in the account made by Kuhn? Not that I know of.

User avatar
Aetixintro
Posts: 319
Joined: Tue Jan 08, 2008 7:44 pm
Contact:

Re: Scientific Paradigms are NOT true

Post by Aetixintro » Fri Nov 20, 2009 8:41 pm

It says in "Logic of Discovery or Psychology of Research?" p. 17, Philosophy of Science - The Central Issues by M. Curd and J. A. Cover, "On some occasions, at least, tests are not requisite to the revolutions through which science advances. But that is not true of puzzles."

Kuhn makes a point in "Logic of Discovery or Psychology of Research?" implying that puzzle solving promotes science better than Popper's testing of hypotheses, but when Kuhn does this, he forgets that the actual astronomical observations can be tested against the explanation that best fits the picture of the set of observations. This is similar to the anomaly of Newton's system where the perihelion of Mercury has been out of line. The anomaly has been bothering astronomers all the time up to Einstein's Theory of Relativity. This is written on p. 85 of Donald Gillies' book, Philosophy of Science in the Twentieth Century.

This may be some of the reason why my criticism of Kuhn has been made possible. He has devoted himself in too great a degree to linguistic constructs and less to the objective facts concerning the actual scientific observations that in a sense represents Scientific Realism. This can partly explain his motivation to hold the Theory of Paradigms even if it's in fact been written app. 8 years after 1. ed. of "The Structure".

Further: I've been reading Kuhn some more and I find this striking statement,
Kuhn, SSR, p. x, Preface wrote: Though subsequent events have somewhat relaxed those restrictions and have made possible simultaneous independent publication, this work remains an essay rather than the full-scale book my subject will ultimately demand.
It's quite astonishing that the followers of Kuhn call his work definitive when he surely haven't bothered to finish it. This is written in February 1962 and Kuhn lives to 1997. I wonder how many excuses that are going to be made on the grounds that the book is unfinished. It makes me think of an analogy with the religious character of Jesus who can be said to be more holes than substance. At least, everyone can now see how the Complexity part falls into my pocket. "Oh... if he only could have finished it." Very well! I continue reading this "essay" of 220 "revolutionary" pages!

Edit: My exposition, view of scientific historiography, consists of the three factors, Interconnectedness, Complexity and Technology (ICT). This will make the best explanation of the history of science and defeat Kuhn's theory of "Paradigms".

User avatar
Cinna
Posts: 2
Joined: Sun Mar 14, 2010 5:58 am
Location: φ=1.61803398874989...

Re: Scientific Paradigms are NOT true

Post by Cinna » Sun Mar 14, 2010 6:27 am

It's clear to me that if the Paradigms of Kuhn are supposed to be true, they have to be logically equivalent. I believe Kuhn states that one isn't able to choose rationally any Paradigm, you are more or less drawn into one by all sorts of strange reasons whether they be feelings, social connections or what. You have this Ptolemaic System. Is this supposed to be equivalent to Einstein's Theory of Relativity or Copernicus' Heliocentric Worldview? It's obvious they are not equivalent. It's also obvious the various worldviews hold different cognition based on different assumptions and observations. Let me add the technological development that has made extensions to our eyes, like the Hubble telescope.
I had a different interpretation...I don't think Kuhn was trying to say that you choose the paradigm based on feelings/social connections.

I think that Kuhn just did not go into detail about the scientific method (which is how you would find said pardigms) because it is so apparent in science. You don't "choose" a paradigm if you are really doing science...you find one by looking at what you see before you.

The nugget of feelings/social connections in that method is, of course, that what you observe is subjective at one level (Descartes moment). But, despite that, I don't think Kuhn was endorsing a "feelings" based approach to science. That would be silly. :P

Ah, but, considering I have not re-read the book in a year, you might be right. Do post the passages which implicate Kuhn to have held this position and elaborate on your analysis.

...

I do agree, however, that the idea of "paradigms" is oversimplified...but it is a handy way of thinking about things. More of a conceptual model than anything else. Reminds me of a lot of psychology theories...the theory will fit reality, yet only in its application and not in its empirical proof.

User avatar
Aetixintro
Posts: 319
Joined: Tue Jan 08, 2008 7:44 pm
Contact:

Re: Scientific Paradigms are NOT true

Post by Aetixintro » Sun Mar 14, 2010 7:53 am

Cinna, thank you for your reply
I admit that you point out the weakest link in my writing. It's not of particular significance as it's pretty much clear that you are only supposed to choose between contemporary theories and that the historical theories aren't in any way seriously considered in Kuhn's theory of Paradigms.

So I remain with the non-cognitive assertion by Kuhn of how we are "persuaded" to choose scientific theories rather than choosing scientific theories out of cognitive virtues.

I'm still working on the Criticism and will do so probably for the next year and possibly more. The more I work on it, the more strange it appears that Cumulativism has received so little attention and effort from other Philosophers of Science.

Very well, I carry on... :)

Cheers!

chaz wyman
Posts: 5329
Joined: Fri Mar 12, 2010 7:31 pm

Re: Scientific Paradigms are NOT true

Post by chaz wyman » Sun Mar 14, 2010 7:34 pm

Aetixintro wrote:Kuhn is going down! Argument developing against Kuhn. (This is "imported" from http://forums.philosophyforums.com/ where it can be found in the Phil. of Science section with the same title. It has been posted there Sep 20, 2009 01:28 PM.) :)

The object of this thread is clear. It's to make an argument against Kuhn. Kuhn is going down! My projection is that I'm going to be alone in this, but you are welcome join me or criticise my attempt or my possibilities to do so, essentially pointing out why Kuhn is such a classic. I have a few articles of Kuhn in my "Philosophy of Science - The Central Issues" by M. Curd and J. A. Cover, publ. by W. W. Norton & Company, 1998 (damn, it's an old book) and I've bought Kuhn's The Structure of Scientific Revolutions, 3rd ed. Alright, here we go!

Nail #1: It's clear to me that if the Paradigms of Kuhn are supposed to be true, they have to be logically equivalent.

No, a thing can be logically true and be completely false.

Truth is dependant on the current evidence seen through the historical filter of endemic assumptions.
Copernicus was not immediately true. In fact his system was less likely to be true than Ptolemy's because it was more clumsy and he had to add a further 4 epicycle for it to work.


I believe Kuhn states that one isn't able to choose rationally any Paradigm, you are more or less drawn into one by all sorts of strange reasons whether they be feelings, social connections or what. You have this Ptolemaic System. Is this supposed to be equivalent to Einstein's Theory of Relativity or Copernicus' Heliocentric Worldview? It's obvious they are not equivalent.

I'm not sure why you think this is particularly important. The main comparison is not between Cop and Ein but between Newton and Einstein. Einstein added and refined Newton, and there is plenty of evidence that the Newtonian paradigm retarded the chance of the adoption of the Einsteinian.


It's also obvious the various worldviews hold different cognition based on different assumptions and observations. Let me add the technological development that has made extensions to our eyes, like the Hubble telescope.

Nail #2. It's therefore established that these K. Paradigms are "chosen" or chosen relatively closely temporally. In this, one first problem is to come up with something at all. Each of these is also building on assumptions of concepts, models - theories, and underlying, historical work whether this is mathematics, (naive) remarkable discoveries, development in technology such as telescopes, magnifying glass, general thinking of what reality should be, ie. conceptualisation and speculation. Maybe we get 2 or 3 "Paradigms" to choose from. As these Paradigms are considered, elaborate testing is going on, perhaps coming up with something. (more?)

Nail #3. Today, what are our options in choosing from paradigms? We have perhaps these 2 or 3 theories in quantum physics. I sense that scientists are well aware they may be wrong! This means competition is open. We can't certainly begin to doubt observations in space and come up with a different astronomical worldview. We have to say that technology nails something for us. Again I point to advances in other fields that are not actually considered by these scientists in this paradigm.

(This is where Kuhn is going down!) Conclusion: We have this giant landscape in science (2009) where advances happen all over. Scientists are connected by the internet to exchange agreements, thoughts, and differences of opinion. They are probably expecting new technology and checking for relevant work done elsewhere on Earth and ISS, all-other-wise. There are, I guess, numerous problems in science currently that are being investigated like the dualism of photons and what have you. Then, it's impossible to determine any single paradigm because everything is interconnected and is developed in unison everywhere. It's impossible to make an incision around particular efforts as a consequence. The "community" lives and dies together. Besides, as I see it, today, most disagreements are theoretical and thus not subject to empirical testing. How is Kuhn doing? I think he looks bleak! (more?)

Thoughts, anyone?

How can you point to the concept of paradigms if there's no content in them? I believe Kuhn is indeed successful in explaining what he means, that the concept is meaningful, but wrong, in my opinion. Yes?

Btw, in the case of the Paradigm of Einstein's Relativity, shouldn't one acknowledge both Einstein and Riemann on it? As I've pointed out, it's impossible to make a "jump" in time and come up with our science, let's say, 500 years ago or 2500 years ago. This should be blatant and clear! I thereby come up with a second conclusion, that we are in effect "climbing a mountain, science-wise" or "scaling that Babel's tower, science-wise". I think I can say that we know that back in time, people have been more wrong or less objective than we are today, but this may have been necessary! It can't be said definitely, but the scope of the development through history lies there. A new theory of evolution, science-wise?

When I use the word "truth" in connection with paradigm, I mean of course that it's the concept of paradigm that's supposed to be true. I must be crazy if I say that the Ptolemaic worldview is supposed to represent truth, I mean of course, the paradigm.

One of my arguments here is that technology may be the whole engine of cognition and scientific progress. Does it matter to consider paradigms if the Ptolemaians have not had the chance, i.e. aids to see with, the corroboration of observations, to make the cognition that are required to become Copernicans (I may have left out some mathematics here and more). So you seem to have skipped the argument of the technological requirements of scientific progress. If it's technology that makes scientific happen, does it make sense to call it a paradigm? It's obvious that technology represents the inter-subjective.

Can you truly say that our future scientific progress doesn't have a broad inter-subjective, "objective", character in that everyone will recognise the right theory to believe in because it's technology that will decide those beliefs?

So all in all, I think it's better to see science as a whole doing gradual advances in the light of the development of "assumptions of concepts, models - theories, and underlying, historical work whether this is mathematics, (naive) remarkable discoveries, development in technology such as telescopes, magnifying glass, general thinking of what reality should be, i.e. conceptualisation and speculation". All science is broadly based therefore only the scientist-spearheads make the mistakes while cognition of the best alternative is inevitable. If this isn't in disagreement with Kuhn then nothing is!

I also note that scientists are well aware they may be wrong! Isn't this counter to Kuhn who is asserting that scientists are blind when they are in a paradigm and that they die with it. Because the scientists die (of old age and whatever) who are driving the paradigms, new paradigms emerge. Is this the case today? I think not. I fail to see that Kuhn is happy with underlying, historical work in explaining his paradigms. I try to disagree with Kuhn in every way, yet you think what I write is very Kuhnian. Very funny!

I can't say nail #3 is addressed at all. You begin to write about the different phases in Kuhn's system while I try to establish cognition as a function of history, especially in the sense of technology with writing "we have to say that technology nails something for us." This aspect is wholly uncommented! I believe it's clear that technology isn't subject to paradigms. Yes?

In your last quote, you mix me up with Banno. When I answer Banno I only think of the concept of "paradigms", nothing more. Is this hard to understand?

I will study Kuhn more and bring quotes and better aimed attacks addressing these quotes. I'll try to shed the Kuhnian about my writing as clearly as possible. Cheers!

A thought strikes that is already implicit, but I say it. Kuhn can really be accused of crudeness in creating the paradigms because he's ignoring those processes leading to the paradigms in sufficiently thorough terms. Call my assumption contextualism or what you want, but it's derived from "assumptions of concepts, models - theories, and underlying, historical work whether this is mathematics, (naive) remarkable discoveries, development in technology such as telescopes, magnifying glass, general thinking of what reality should be, ie. conceptualisation and speculation". As Kuhn fails to deal with these processes properly, his argument of paradigms is an illusion. I will follow up on what I write, but this thought has been pressing.

Note: Some people may point out that some paradigms happen as a function of "accidents" or unforeseen events. I'm thinking of penicillin or whatever, but I want people to have in mind that these investigative people have been through education and what (Einstein is a Ph.d. when he comes up with the relativity theory, not that it is an accident) and are usually in the process of rigorous research. These people, like Sir Alexander Fleming, are extremely attuned to pick up remarkable events. I don't think any such possible situation is weakening my attack on "paradigms", Kuhn's book. This is so because they are building on that foundation of assumptions that is historically set. I don't deny there are excellent scientists, but they are a part of history, "standing on the shoulders of giants". See Nail #2 in post #1 in this thread!

Natural kinds seem to be somewhat uncertain on their fundamental level. Natural kinds also go for the substance while I go for "natural laws, not more defined than that as structures of nature in their totality". I'm thinking of Kant when he asserts that Newton gravity is part of the mind's ways. smiling face
I have the sense that I may be able to provide a set of axioms while natural kinds have a hard time doing this(?). I may have looked at natural kinds some time in the past and found it weak. Perhaps I should look again. Anyone who'll try Natural Kinds?

First, quickly, I'm absolutely not arguing for independence of technology from theory. This would be extremely foolish! It's obvious that technology relies on theory, but sometimes it may be a lot more pragmatic than f.x. a theory in astronomy or cosmology. The point is still the interconnectedness in all of science, more or less! As such, these considerations may not be new, but I've yet to see anyone making a good case for it, ie. historiography of science, an actual work published digitally or at least in paper, (multi-volume) book. Are we clear?

Necessarily, my attack on Kuhn includes that scientific revolutions and paradigms are considered pop-culture. The truth is that advances in science are gradual and progressive. At least, the data collected is clearly cumulative and perhaps corrected. It should be exciting to see what levels on can achieve in micro- and macro-scopes in the sciences.

Concerning nail #1, I have to admit that I'm wrong in equalling the paradigms regardless of time. Let me quote
Kuhn from SSR, 3rd ed., chapter 9, p. 96: wrote:
Quote: ...After the pre-paradigm period the assimilation of all new theories and of almost all new sorts of phenomena has in fact demanded the destruction of a prior paradigm and a consequent conflict between competing schools of scientific thought...
If I find more of these instances I'll quote them too.

User avatar
Aetixintro
Posts: 319
Joined: Tue Jan 08, 2008 7:44 pm
Contact:

Re: Scientific Paradigms are NOT true

Post by Aetixintro » Tue Jun 08, 2010 7:26 pm

I just like to add, having learnt of Ian Hacking's "Interactive Kinds", that it may be just as an effective term to describe the history of science as my "Interconnectedness, Complexity and Technology (ICT)". Also, "interactive kinds" reinforces "natural kinds" beautifully!

Therefore, you may already now want to begin to read Ian Hacking and make your own Cumulativist version of it! Good luck! Cheers! :)

[Edit, 21.06.2010:] I'm wondering about writing about the "paradigm" of the microscope to crush the notion of paradigm because the microscope (or the telescope) extends so beautifully from our natural observing capacity and through relatively plausible optics mechanisms. Eventually I hope this is to happen, nevertheless.

And: It can be worth noting the preceding history to the laboratory and why one has decided to use laboratories in the first place. Because Kuhn is explicitly unable or not willing to separate theory and necessary experiment apparatus for making the case of the theory. Thus, experiment apparatus is not some arbitrary "black magic" device, but maybe in the Kuhnian sense, charicaturely!

What other choice is there? There are indeed deep limitations to being a human being, thus we need the microscope, the LHC, the other particle accelerators, the SOHO satelite, the spectrometer and the rest!

It maybe unnecessary to say that this writing or outlining will be a total crash with "The Structure" even if his "Structure" in many senses is well told and expertly composed. More later (for some good time)...! :) [End of edit.]

User avatar
Aetixintro
Posts: 319
Joined: Tue Jan 08, 2008 7:44 pm
Contact:

Re: Scientific Paradigms are NOT true

Post by Aetixintro » Sun Jul 04, 2010 12:33 pm

chaz wyman
Your post should look like this:
Aetixintro wrote:Kuhn is going down! Argument developing against Kuhn. (This is "imported" from http://forums.philosophyforums.com/ where it can be found in the Phil. of Science section with the same title. It has been posted there Sep 20, 2009 01:28 PM.) :)

The object of this thread is clear. It's to make an argument against Kuhn. Kuhn is going down! My projection is that I'm going to be alone in this, but you are welcome join me or criticise my attempt or my possibilities to do so, essentially pointing out why Kuhn is such a classic. I have a few articles of Kuhn in my "Philosophy of Science - The Central Issues" by M. Curd and J. A. Cover, publ. by W. W. Norton & Company, 1998 (damn, it's an old book) and I've bought Kuhn's The Structure of Scientific Revolutions, 3rd ed. Alright, here we go!

Nail #1: It's clear to me that if the Paradigms of Kuhn are supposed to be true, they have to be logically equivalent.
chaz wyman wrote:No, a thing can be logically true and be completely false.

Truth is dependant on the current evidence seen through the historical filter of endemic assumptions.
Copernicus was not immediately true. In fact his system was less likely to be true than Ptolemy's because it was more clumsy and he had to add a further 4 epicycle for it to work.
Aetixintro wrote:I believe Kuhn states that one isn't able to choose rationally any Paradigm, you are more or less drawn into one by all sorts of strange reasons whether they be feelings, social connections or what. You have this Ptolemaic System. Is this supposed to be equivalent to Einstein's Theory of Relativity or Copernicus' Heliocentric Worldview? It's obvious they are not equivalent.
chaz wyman wrote:I'm not sure why you think this is particularly important. The main comparison is not between Cop and Ein but between Newton and Einstein. Einstein added and refined Newton, and there is plenty of evidence that the Newtonian paradigm retarded the chance of the adoption of the Einsteinian.
Aetixintro wrote:It's also obvious the various worldviews hold different cognition based on different assumptions and observations. Let me add the technological development that has made extensions to our eyes, like the Hubble telescope.

Nail #2. It's therefore established that these K. Paradigms are "chosen" or chosen relatively closely temporally. In this, one first problem is to come up with something at all. Each of these is also building on assumptions of concepts, models - theories, and underlying, historical work whether this is mathematics, (naive) remarkable discoveries, development in technology such as telescopes, magnifying glass, general thinking of what reality should be, ie. conceptualisation and speculation. Maybe we get 2 or 3 "Paradigms" to choose from. As these Paradigms are considered, elaborate testing is going on, perhaps coming up with something. (more?)

Nail #3. Today, what are our options in choosing from paradigms? We have perhaps these 2 or 3 theories in quantum physics. I sense that scientists are well aware they may be wrong! This means competition is open. We can't certainly begin to doubt observations in space and come up with a different astronomical worldview. We have to say that technology nails something for us. Again I point to advances in other fields that are not actually considered by these scientists in this paradigm.

(This is where Kuhn is going down!) Conclusion: We have this giant landscape in science (2009) where advances happen all over. Scientists are connected by the internet to exchange agreements, thoughts, and differences of opinion. They are probably expecting new technology and checking for relevant work done elsewhere on Earth and ISS, all-other-wise. There are, I guess, numerous problems in science currently that are being investigated like the dualism of photons and what have you. Then, it's impossible to determine any single paradigm because everything is interconnected and is developed in unison everywhere. It's impossible to make an incision around particular efforts as a consequence. The "community" lives and dies together. Besides, as I see it, today, most disagreements are theoretical and thus not subject to empirical testing. How is Kuhn doing? I think he looks bleak! (more?)

Thoughts, anyone?

How can you point to the concept of paradigms if there's no content in them? I believe Kuhn is indeed successful in explaining what he means, that the concept is meaningful, but wrong, in my opinion. Yes?

Btw, in the case of the Paradigm of Einstein's Relativity, shouldn't one acknowledge both Einstein and Riemann on it? As I've pointed out, it's impossible to make a "jump" in time and come up with our science, let's say, 500 years ago or 2500 years ago. This should be blatant and clear! I thereby come up with a second conclusion, that we are in effect "climbing a mountain, science-wise" or "scaling that Babel's tower, science-wise". I think I can say that we know that back in time, people have been more wrong or less objective than we are today, but this may have been necessary! It can't be said definitely, but the scope of the development through history lies there. A new theory of evolution, science-wise?

When I use the word "truth" in connection with paradigm, I mean of course that it's the concept of paradigm that's supposed to be true. I must be crazy if I say that the Ptolemaic worldview is supposed to represent truth, I mean of course, the paradigm.

One of my arguments here is that technology may be the whole engine of cognition and scientific progress. Does it matter to consider paradigms if the Ptolemaians have not had the chance, i.e. aids to see with, the corroboration of observations, to make the cognition that are required to become Copernicans (I may have left out some mathematics here and more). So you seem to have skipped the argument of the technological requirements of scientific progress. If it's technology that makes scientific happen, does it make sense to call it a paradigm? It's obvious that technology represents the inter-subjective.

Can you truly say that our future scientific progress doesn't have a broad inter-subjective, "objective", character in that everyone will recognise the right theory to believe in because it's technology that will decide those beliefs?

So all in all, I think it's better to see science as a whole doing gradual advances in the light of the development of "assumptions of concepts, models - theories, and underlying, historical work whether this is mathematics, (naive) remarkable discoveries, development in technology such as telescopes, magnifying glass, general thinking of what reality should be, i.e. conceptualisation and speculation". All science is broadly based therefore only the scientist-spearheads make the mistakes while cognition of the best alternative is inevitable. If this isn't in disagreement with Kuhn then nothing is!

I also note that scientists are well aware they may be wrong! Isn't this counter to Kuhn who is asserting that scientists are blind when they are in a paradigm and that they die with it. Because the scientists die (of old age and whatever) who are driving the paradigms, new paradigms emerge. Is this the case today? I think not. I fail to see that Kuhn is happy with underlying, historical work in explaining his paradigms. I try to disagree with Kuhn in every way, yet you think what I write is very Kuhnian. Very funny!

I can't say nail #3 is addressed at all. You begin to write about the different phases in Kuhn's system while I try to establish cognition as a function of history, especially in the sense of technology with writing "we have to say that technology nails something for us." This aspect is wholly uncommented! I believe it's clear that technology isn't subject to paradigms. Yes?

In your last quote, you mix me up with Banno. When I answer Banno I only think of the concept of "paradigms", nothing more. Is this hard to understand?

I will study Kuhn more and bring quotes and better aimed attacks addressing these quotes. I'll try to shed the Kuhnian about my writing as clearly as possible. Cheers!

A thought strikes that is already implicit, but I say it. Kuhn can really be accused of crudeness in creating the paradigms because he's ignoring those processes leading to the paradigms in sufficiently thorough terms. Call my assumption contextualism or what you want, but it's derived from "assumptions of concepts, models - theories, and underlying, historical work whether this is mathematics, (naive) remarkable discoveries, development in technology such as telescopes, magnifying glass, general thinking of what reality should be, ie. conceptualisation and speculation". As Kuhn fails to deal with these processes properly, his argument of paradigms is an illusion. I will follow up on what I write, but this thought has been pressing.

Note: Some people may point out that some paradigms happen as a function of "accidents" or unforeseen events. I'm thinking of penicillin or whatever, but I want people to have in mind that these investigative people have been through education and what (Einstein is a Ph.d. when he comes up with the relativity theory, not that it is an accident) and are usually in the process of rigorous research. These people, like Sir Alexander Fleming, are extremely attuned to pick up remarkable events. I don't think any such possible situation is weakening my attack on "paradigms", Kuhn's book. This is so because they are building on that foundation of assumptions that is historically set. I don't deny there are excellent scientists, but they are a part of history, "standing on the shoulders of giants". See Nail #2 in post #1 in this thread!

Natural kinds seem to be somewhat uncertain on their fundamental level. Natural kinds also go for the substance while I go for "natural laws, not more defined than that as structures of nature in their totality". I'm thinking of Kant when he asserts that Newton gravity is part of the mind's ways. smiling face
I have the sense that I may be able to provide a set of axioms while natural kinds have a hard time doing this(?). I may have looked at natural kinds some time in the past and found it weak. Perhaps I should look again. Anyone who'll try Natural Kinds?

First, quickly, I'm absolutely not arguing for independence of technology from theory. This would be extremely foolish! It's obvious that technology relies on theory, but sometimes it may be a lot more pragmatic than f.x. a theory in astronomy or cosmology. The point is still the interconnectedness in all of science, more or less! As such, these considerations may not be new, but I've yet to see anyone making a good case for it, ie. historiography of science, an actual work published digitally or at least in paper, (multi-volume) book. Are we clear?

Necessarily, my attack on Kuhn includes that scientific revolutions and paradigms are considered pop-culture. The truth is that advances in science are gradual and progressive. At least, the data collected is clearly cumulative and perhaps corrected. It should be exciting to see what levels on can achieve in micro- and macro-scopes in the sciences.

Concerning nail #1, I have to admit that I'm wrong in equalling the paradigms regardless of time. Let me quote
Kuhn from SSR, 3rd ed., chapter 9, p. 96: wrote:
Quote: ...After the pre-paradigm period the assimilation of all new theories and of almost all new sorts of phenomena has in fact demanded the destruction of a prior paradigm and a consequent conflict between competing schools of scientific thought...
If I find more of these instances I'll quote them too.
Last edited by Aetixintro on Sun Jul 04, 2010 12:43 pm, edited 2 times in total.

User avatar
Aetixintro
Posts: 319
Joined: Tue Jan 08, 2008 7:44 pm
Contact:

Re: Scientific Paradigms are NOT true

Post by Aetixintro » Sun Jul 04, 2010 12:37 pm

chaz wyman wrote:
Aetixintro wrote:Kuhn is going down! Argument developing against Kuhn. (This is "imported" from http://forums.philosophyforums.com/ where it can be found in the Phil. of Science section with the same title. It has been posted there Sep 20, 2009 01:28 PM.) :)

The object of this thread is clear. It's to make an argument against Kuhn. Kuhn is going down! My projection is that I'm going to be alone in this, but you are welcome join me or criticise my attempt or my possibilities to do so, essentially pointing out why Kuhn is such a classic. I have a few articles of Kuhn in my "Philosophy of Science - The Central Issues" by M. Curd and J. A. Cover, publ. by W. W. Norton & Company, 1998 (damn, it's an old book) and I've bought Kuhn's The Structure of Scientific Revolutions, 3rd ed. Alright, here we go!

Nail #1: It's clear to me that if the Paradigms of Kuhn are supposed to be true, they have to be logically equivalent.

No, a thing can be logically true and be completely false.

Truth is dependant on the current evidence seen through the historical filter of endemic assumptions.
Copernicus was not immediately true. In fact his system was less likely to be true than Ptolemy's because it was more clumsy and he had to add a further 4 epicycle for it to work.


I believe Kuhn states that one isn't able to choose rationally any Paradigm, you are more or less drawn into one by all sorts of strange reasons whether they be feelings, social connections or what. You have this Ptolemaic System. Is this supposed to be equivalent to Einstein's Theory of Relativity or Copernicus' Heliocentric Worldview? It's obvious they are not equivalent.

I'm not sure why you think this is particularly important. The main comparison is not between Cop and Ein but between Newton and Einstein. Einstein added and refined Newton, and there is plenty of evidence that the Newtonian paradigm retarded the chance of the adoption of the Einsteinian.


It's also obvious the various worldviews hold different cognition based on different assumptions and observations. Let me add the technological development that has made extensions to our eyes, like the Hubble telescope.

Nail #2. It's therefore established that these K. Paradigms are "chosen" or chosen relatively closely temporally. In this, one first problem is to come up with something at all. Each of these is also building on assumptions of concepts, models - theories, and underlying, historical work whether this is mathematics, (naive) remarkable discoveries, development in technology such as telescopes, magnifying glass, general thinking of what reality should be, ie. conceptualisation and speculation. Maybe we get 2 or 3 "Paradigms" to choose from. As these Paradigms are considered, elaborate testing is going on, perhaps coming up with something. (more?)

Nail #3. Today, what are our options in choosing from paradigms? We have perhaps these 2 or 3 theories in quantum physics. I sense that scientists are well aware they may be wrong! This means competition is open. We can't certainly begin to doubt observations in space and come up with a different astronomical worldview. We have to say that technology nails something for us. Again I point to advances in other fields that are not actually considered by these scientists in this paradigm.

(This is where Kuhn is going down!) Conclusion: We have this giant landscape in science (2009) where advances happen all over. Scientists are connected by the internet to exchange agreements, thoughts, and differences of opinion. They are probably expecting new technology and checking for relevant work done elsewhere on Earth and ISS, all-other-wise. There are, I guess, numerous problems in science currently that are being investigated like the dualism of photons and what have you. Then, it's impossible to determine any single paradigm because everything is interconnected and is developed in unison everywhere. It's impossible to make an incision around particular efforts as a consequence. The "community" lives and dies together. Besides, as I see it, today, most disagreements are theoretical and thus not subject to empirical testing. How is Kuhn doing? I think he looks bleak! (more?)

Thoughts, anyone?

How can you point to the concept of paradigms if there's no content in them? I believe Kuhn is indeed successful in explaining what he means, that the concept is meaningful, but wrong, in my opinion. Yes?

Btw, in the case of the Paradigm of Einstein's Relativity, shouldn't one acknowledge both Einstein and Riemann on it? As I've pointed out, it's impossible to make a "jump" in time and come up with our science, let's say, 500 years ago or 2500 years ago. This should be blatant and clear! I thereby come up with a second conclusion, that we are in effect "climbing a mountain, science-wise" or "scaling that Babel's tower, science-wise". I think I can say that we know that back in time, people have been more wrong or less objective than we are today, but this may have been necessary! It can't be said definitely, but the scope of the development through history lies there. A new theory of evolution, science-wise?

When I use the word "truth" in connection with paradigm, I mean of course that it's the concept of paradigm that's supposed to be true. I must be crazy if I say that the Ptolemaic worldview is supposed to represent truth, I mean of course, the paradigm.

One of my arguments here is that technology may be the whole engine of cognition and scientific progress. Does it matter to consider paradigms if the Ptolemaians have not had the chance, i.e. aids to see with, the corroboration of observations, to make the cognition that are required to become Copernicans (I may have left out some mathematics here and more). So you seem to have skipped the argument of the technological requirements of scientific progress. If it's technology that makes scientific happen, does it make sense to call it a paradigm? It's obvious that technology represents the inter-subjective.

Can you truly say that our future scientific progress doesn't have a broad inter-subjective, "objective", character in that everyone will recognise the right theory to believe in because it's technology that will decide those beliefs?

So all in all, I think it's better to see science as a whole doing gradual advances in the light of the development of "assumptions of concepts, models - theories, and underlying, historical work whether this is mathematics, (naive) remarkable discoveries, development in technology such as telescopes, magnifying glass, general thinking of what reality should be, i.e. conceptualisation and speculation". All science is broadly based therefore only the scientist-spearheads make the mistakes while cognition of the best alternative is inevitable. If this isn't in disagreement with Kuhn then nothing is!

I also note that scientists are well aware they may be wrong! Isn't this counter to Kuhn who is asserting that scientists are blind when they are in a paradigm and that they die with it. Because the scientists die (of old age and whatever) who are driving the paradigms, new paradigms emerge. Is this the case today? I think not. I fail to see that Kuhn is happy with underlying, historical work in explaining his paradigms. I try to disagree with Kuhn in every way, yet you think what I write is very Kuhnian. Very funny!

I can't say nail #3 is addressed at all. You begin to write about the different phases in Kuhn's system while I try to establish cognition as a function of history, especially in the sense of technology with writing "we have to say that technology nails something for us." This aspect is wholly uncommented! I believe it's clear that technology isn't subject to paradigms. Yes?

In your last quote, you mix me up with Banno. When I answer Banno I only think of the concept of "paradigms", nothing more. Is this hard to understand?

I will study Kuhn more and bring quotes and better aimed attacks addressing these quotes. I'll try to shed the Kuhnian about my writing as clearly as possible. Cheers!

A thought strikes that is already implicit, but I say it. Kuhn can really be accused of crudeness in creating the paradigms because he's ignoring those processes leading to the paradigms in sufficiently thorough terms. Call my assumption contextualism or what you want, but it's derived from "assumptions of concepts, models - theories, and underlying, historical work whether this is mathematics, (naive) remarkable discoveries, development in technology such as telescopes, magnifying glass, general thinking of what reality should be, ie. conceptualisation and speculation". As Kuhn fails to deal with these processes properly, his argument of paradigms is an illusion. I will follow up on what I write, but this thought has been pressing.

Note: Some people may point out that some paradigms happen as a function of "accidents" or unforeseen events. I'm thinking of penicillin or whatever, but I want people to have in mind that these investigative people have been through education and what (Einstein is a Ph.d. when he comes up with the relativity theory, not that it is an accident) and are usually in the process of rigorous research. These people, like Sir Alexander Fleming, are extremely attuned to pick up remarkable events. I don't think any such possible situation is weakening my attack on "paradigms", Kuhn's book. This is so because they are building on that foundation of assumptions that is historically set. I don't deny there are excellent scientists, but they are a part of history, "standing on the shoulders of giants". See Nail #2 in post #1 in this thread!

Natural kinds seem to be somewhat uncertain on their fundamental level. Natural kinds also go for the substance while I go for "natural laws, not more defined than that as structures of nature in their totality". I'm thinking of Kant when he asserts that Newton gravity is part of the mind's ways. smiling face
I have the sense that I may be able to provide a set of axioms while natural kinds have a hard time doing this(?). I may have looked at natural kinds some time in the past and found it weak. Perhaps I should look again. Anyone who'll try Natural Kinds?

First, quickly, I'm absolutely not arguing for independence of technology from theory. This would be extremely foolish! It's obvious that technology relies on theory, but sometimes it may be a lot more pragmatic than f.x. a theory in astronomy or cosmology. The point is still the interconnectedness in all of science, more or less! As such, these considerations may not be new, but I've yet to see anyone making a good case for it, ie. historiography of science, an actual work published digitally or at least in paper, (multi-volume) book. Are we clear?

Necessarily, my attack on Kuhn includes that scientific revolutions and paradigms are considered pop-culture. The truth is that advances in science are gradual and progressive. At least, the data collected is clearly cumulative and perhaps corrected. It should be exciting to see what levels on can achieve in micro- and macro-scopes in the sciences.

Concerning nail #1, I have to admit that I'm wrong in equalling the paradigms regardless of time. Let me quote
Kuhn from SSR, 3rd ed., chapter 9, p. 96: wrote:
Quote: ...After the pre-paradigm period the assimilation of all new theories and of almost all new sorts of phenomena has in fact demanded the destruction of a prior paradigm and a consequent conflict between competing schools of scientific thought...
If I find more of these instances I'll quote them too.

User avatar
Aetixintro
Posts: 319
Joined: Tue Jan 08, 2008 7:44 pm
Contact:

Re: Scientific Paradigms are NOT true

Post by Aetixintro » Sat Jan 29, 2011 2:04 pm

To make the distinction full between Kuhn and myself and why my description has more use than Kuhn's beside being true is that with my theory of ICT it should be possible to determine the careful steps that lead to a successful theory in a complex picture of historiography of science rather than the very crude image given by Kuhn and his incomplete work, by his own words, of The Structure!

Understand? Cheers! :D

Mike Strand
Posts: 329
Joined: Wed Jan 06, 2010 6:54 am
Location: Virginia, USA

Re: Scientific Paradigms are NOT true

Post by Mike Strand » Tue Mar 29, 2011 3:07 pm

I don't have anything to say about the concept of "scientific paradigm", but I think in writing about it, Aetixintro, you've brought up a point I think is important: The effect and importance of technology -- broadly defined as the application of scientific knowledge and experience and experiment to make tools, instruments, and other devices for the use and entertainment of human beings.

Focusing on technology used to make tools of measurement (telescopes, spectrometers, and the like): Such tools have supported gathering of data as grist for the mill of developing scientific theories. As the tools become better, new and more accurate measurements and experiments are possible, leading to further refinement or change to scientific theory. Measurement of phenomena at the sub-atomic scale is an issue in making any possible improvements to quantum theory, for example. Likewise, the power of our telescopes and other devices for detecting objects or energy in the far reaches of space affects how well we can answer questions and develop theories.

Also, new theories suggest the need for new kinds of data, which in turn leads to technological development of tools to gather that data.

Thus technology and scientific theory work hand in hand to support advances in each of them.

User avatar
Aetixintro
Posts: 319
Joined: Tue Jan 08, 2008 7:44 pm
Contact:

Re: Scientific Paradigms are NOT true

Post by Aetixintro » Tue Mar 29, 2011 9:07 pm

I heartily welcome your reply, Mike Strand! I've actually expected more of these replies to writings that I think are well founded already. But so be it, such is the exchange of ideas in our world.

I don't want to add anything either at this point, but it may be that I cite you! Cheers! :)

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

Re: Scientific Paradigms are NOT true

Post by Rortabend » Wed Mar 30, 2011 10:16 am

It's quite astonishing that the followers of Kuhn call his work definitive when he surely haven't bothered to finish it. This is written in February 1962 and Kuhn lives to 1997. I wonder how many excuses that are going to be made on the grounds that the book is unfinished.
Who are these followers of Kuhn you speak of? Although Kuhn is hugely influential (and rightly so) in many different fields, his theory of scientific progress is largely discredited in HPS circles.

Kuhn was actually quite embarassed by the effect that his book had on the field, particularly as it was taken by some (e.g. Sociologists of Scientific Knowledge) to imply a relativist/irrational interpretation of the history of science. This is why he refused to become the poster boy of SSK in the 1970s and 1980s.

lancek4
Posts: 1131
Joined: Sat Oct 16, 2010 5:50 pm

Re: Scientific Paradigms are NOT true

Post by lancek4 » Sun Sep 25, 2011 12:26 pm

Though Khun does draw out his argument along specific lines, I aways felt that Foucault gives an example of K's idea in F's "Order of Things" with his discussion of 'man'.

User avatar
Necromancer
Posts: 267
Joined: Thu Jul 30, 2015 12:30 am
Location: Metropolitan-Oslo, Norway, Europe
Contact:

Re: Scientific Paradigms are NOT true

Post by Necromancer » Sat Dec 03, 2016 8:26 pm

Case in point for ICT (by Aetixintro), the "new" story of astronomy in greater detail:
First, some links,
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aristarchus_of_Samos Aristarchus of Samos, c. 310 - c. 230 BC
- The heliocentric view that has failed to take hold

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Babylonia ... al_diaries Babylonian astronomical diaries

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ptolemy Ptolemy, c. 100 AD - c. 170 AD
- The geocentric worldview

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Latin_tra ... anslations
"- Ptolemy (2nd century A.D.)
Almagest: from Greek, Sicily c. 1160; Gerard of Cremona, from Arabic, Toledo 1175
Optica: Eugenius of Palermo, from Arabic, c. 1154"

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Printing_press Printing 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."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nicolaus_Copernicus Nicolaus Copernicus, 19 February 1473 - 24 May 1543 (AD)
- The heliocentric worldview (start)
- Growing archive/database of observations, library of astronomical data

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tycho_Brahe Tycho Brahe 14 December 1546 – 24 October 1601
- Growing archive/database of observations, library of astronomical data
- Wrongly posited the geo-heliocentric worldview, the Tychonic system
"Well known in his lifetime as an astronomer, astrologer and alchemist, he has been described as "the first competent mind in modern astronomy to feel ardently the passion for exact empirical facts." His observations were some five times more accurate than the best available observations at the time."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_the_telescope History of the telescope

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_telescope_types List of telescope types

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Observato ... ervatories Astronomical observatories - oldest
A selection...
  • 1577: Istanbul observatory of Taqi al-Din, Turkey
    1580: Uraniborg, Denmark
    1581: Stjerneborg, Denmark
    1642: Panzano Observatory, Italy
    1642: Round Tower, Denmark
    1633: Leiden Observatory, Netherlands
    1667: Paris Observatory, France
    1675: Royal Greenwich Observatory, England
    1695: Sukharev Tower, Russia
    1711: Berlin Observatory, Germany
    1724: Jantar Mantar, India
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Refracting_telescope
- Galileo's use: "Galileo Galilei, happening to be in Venice in about the month of May 1609, heard of the invention and constructed a version of his own."
- Kepler's use: "The Keplerian telescope, invented by Johannes Kepler in 1611, is an improvement on Galileo's design. It uses a convex lens as the eyepiece instead of Galileo's concave one."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Galileo_Galilei Galileo Galilei, 15 February 1564 - 8 January 1642
- The heliocentric worldview (supported)
- Growing archive/database of observations, library of astronomical data
- Refracting telescope, Galilean telescope, supporting the heliocentric worldview

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Johannes_Kepler Johannes Kepler, December 27, 1571 – November 15, 1630
- The heliocentric worldview (supported)
- Growing archive/database of observations, library of astronomical data
- Refracting telescope, Keplerian telescope, supporting the heliocentric worldview

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heliocentrism Heliocentrism

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Binoculars Binoculars

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reflecting_telescope Reflecting telescope

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Isaac_Newton Sir Isaac Newton FRS 25 December 1642 - 20 March 1726/27
- Growing archive/database of observations, library of astronomical data
- Reflecting telescope, Newtonian telescope (1668), supporting the heliocentric worldview
- Theory of gravity

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Newtonian_telescope Newtonian telescope
- Newton's invention
"In late 1668 Isaac Newton built his first reflecting telescope. He chose an alloy (speculum metal) of tin and copper as the most suitable material for his objective mirror. He later devised means for shaping and grinding the mirror and may have been the first to use a pitch lap to polish the optical surface."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_Herschel Frederick William Herschel KH, FRS 15 November 1738 – 25 August 1822
- Growing archive/database of observations, library of astronomical data
- All telescopes for this era!
"During his career, he constructed more than four hundred telescopes. The largest and most famous of these was a reflecting telescope with a 49 1⁄2-inch-diameter (1.26 m) primary mirror and a 40-foot (12 m) focal length. Because of the poor reflectivity of the speculum mirrors of that day, Herschel eliminated the small diagonal mirror of a standard newtonian reflector from his design and tilted his primary mirror so he could view the formed image directly."
- Library of theories (Theory of gravity, Kepler, Copernicus, Newton etc.)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Universe The Universe
"The earliest scientific models of the Universe were developed by ancient Greek and Indian philosophers and were geocentric, placing the Earth at the center of the Universe. Over the centuries, more precise astronomical observations led Nicolaus Copernicus (1473–1543) to develop the heliocentric model with the Sun at the center of the Solar System. In developing the law of universal gravitation, Sir Isaac Newton (NS: 1643–1727) built upon Copernicus's work as well as observations by Tycho Brahe (1546–1601) and Johannes Kepler's (1571–1630) laws of planetary motion. Further observational improvements led to the realization that our Solar System is located in the Milky Way galaxy and is one of many solar systems and galaxies. It is assumed that galaxies are distributed uniformly and the same in all directions, meaning that the Universe has neither an edge nor a center. Discoveries in the early 20th century have suggested that the Universe had a beginning and that it is expanding at an increasing rate."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Edwin_Hubble Edwin Powell Hubble November 20, 1889 – September 28, 1953
- Growing archive/database of observations, library of astronomical data
- All telescopes for this era!
- Library of theories (Theory of gravity, Kepler, Copernicus, Newton etc.)
- "was an American astronomer who played a crucial role in establishing the field of extragalactic astronomy and is generally regarded as one of the most important observational cosmologists of the 20th century. Hubble is known for showing that the recessional velocity of a galaxy increases with its distance from the earth, implying the universe is expanding, known as "Hubble's law", although a preliminary version of this relation was proposed by Georges Lemaître two years earlier in a less prominent journal."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Harlow_Shapley Harlow Shapley November 2, 1885 – October 20, 1972
- Growing archive/database of observations, library of astronomical data
- All telescopes for this era!
- Library of theories (Theory of gravity, Kepler, Copernicus, Newton etc.)
"He used RR Lyrae stars to correctly estimate the size of the Milky Way Galaxy and the sun's position within it by using parallax. In 1953 he proposed his "liquid water belt" theory, now known as the concept of a habitable zone."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Albert_Einstein Albert Einstein 14 March 1879 - 18 April 1955
- Growing archive/database of observations, library of astronomical data
- All telescopes for this era!
- Library of theories (Theory of gravity, Kepler, Copernicus, Newton etc.)
- Theory of relativity

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Satellite Satellite
"The world's first artificial satellite, the Sputnik 1, was launched by the Soviet Union in 1957. Since then, thousands of satellites have been launched into orbit around the Earth. Some satellites, notably space stations, have been launched in parts and assembled in orbit. Artificial satellites originate from more than 40 countries and have used the satellite launching capabilities of ten nations. About a thousand satellites are currently operational, whereas thousands of unused satellites and satellite fragments orbit the Earth as space debris. A few space probes have been placed into orbit around other bodies and become artificial satellites to the Moon, Mercury, Venus, Mars, Jupiter, Saturn, Vesta, Eros, Ceres, and the Sun."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moon_landing Moon landing
"A Moon landing is the arrival of a spacecraft on the surface of the Moon. This includes both manned and unmanned (robotic) missions. The first human-made object to reach the surface of the Moon was the Soviet Union's Luna 2 mission, on 13 September 1959.

The United States' Apollo 11 was the first manned mission to land on the Moon, on 20 July 1969. There have been six manned U.S. landings (between 1969 and 1972) and numerous unmanned landings, with no soft landings happening from 22 August 1976 until 14 December 2013."

My claim is then that "bits and pieces" make the scientific day against Kuhn's "orderly" Paradigms and so on, that science takes place in a "Cumulativist" way where science gets increasingly accurate and on Truth!

From this text I intend to show that the title reveals the truth. Largely speaking "revolutions" is the language of the tabloids! (More is coming.)

Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest