Scientific Paradigms are NOT true

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

Moderators: AMod, iMod

User avatar
A_Seagull
Posts: 493
Joined: Thu Jun 05, 2014 11:09 pm

Re: Scientific Paradigms are NOT true

Post by A_Seagull » Wed Jan 11, 2017 5:26 am

Its all paradigms. There is no 'truth' about the world that does not emanate from or is not a part of a paradigm.

User avatar
Necromancer
Posts: 269
Joined: Thu Jul 30, 2015 12:30 am
Location: Metropolitan-Oslo, Norway, Europe
Contact:

Re: Scientific Paradigms are NOT true

Post by Necromancer » Mon Mar 13, 2017 8:41 am

If two lessons can be drawn from history of science, they are these: accuracy and added description. Not scientific revolutions, not cognitively new worlds!

The telescopes of history can be viewed in combination by the focusing telescope that's able to go from the view of the naked eye to the starry heavens and zooming in on a given bit of astronomical sky! Thereby you go from the weakest telescopes in history, meaning the earliest, to the most powerful telescopes in history, meaning the somewhat latest.

(Edit:) The same goes for the microscope too! Not a new world, but deeper, more accurate view of details.

I don't deny the amazing experience of it, however.

Good? :)

(Edit2:) From viewtopic.php?f=15&t=20879,

"Although it's intriguing to read about the great knowledge of science that's provided in this book, I feel that the book to some extent ignores two entities and these are:
* Libraries of scientific facts
* Libraries of scientific theories and the corresponding anomalies
From this I also feel that the SSR ignores people's possibility to choose the best from these theories and that the best also represents the latest for the informed scientist/layman/student. It is actually possible to evaluate scientific theories and to read about the anomalies from these theories. Then, who wants to turn to an older theory for real no matter how separate from society?"

"In the Section I: A role for history, p. 8, in the book, Kuhn admits he breaches the divide between "the context of discovery" and "the context of justification". This mixes the facts with the theories in his book, something I think necessitates his story on history of science."

"On models, it is often said that models may not be entirely true, but approximately true. That is, there is something about them that widens our understanding of the real world, the reality itself. This is what I find with the latest theories, hypotheses, experiments... that they make it quite hard to identify the next theory, hypthesis, experiment that takes us closer to truth than we already are. This puts a hard limit on what can be presented as science (seriously) at all."

"* Of truth, think of it as plausibility for the community of the informed scientist, layman and student."

"The SSR, 3rd ed., writes, p. 76
"As in manufacture so in science - retooling is an extravagance to be reserved for the occasion that demands it. The significance of crises is the indication they provide that an occasion for retooling has arrived.""

"To this, one should be aware that the tools/apparatuses are principally "cumulative" even if some archaic stuff isn't existing on our planet as such."
Last edited by Necromancer on Fri Mar 17, 2017 2:16 am, edited 3 times in total.

Impenitent
Posts: 1698
Joined: Wed Feb 10, 2010 2:04 pm

Re: Scientific Paradigms are NOT true

Post by Impenitent » Mon Mar 13, 2017 12:48 pm

the only truth of a paradigm is 20 cents worth of return

-Imp

User avatar
Necromancer
Posts: 269
Joined: Thu Jul 30, 2015 12:30 am
Location: Metropolitan-Oslo, Norway, Europe
Contact:

Re: Scientific Paradigms are NOT true

Post by Necromancer » Fri Mar 17, 2017 4:29 pm

I've identified a mark of stupidity in history of science in that Galileo Galilei's superior has failed to commission/make the order for building, let's say, 10 Galilean telescopes when in fact his opponents and contemporaries alike have been in need of one!

This is remarkable because it shows that his contemporaries have not (to my knowledge) been interested to learn what Galileo Galilei has seen in his telescope!

Conclusion: the opponents of Galileo Galilei have NOT been driven by a (first-hand) thirst for knowledge!

History shows that there are quite some examples of this kind of behaviour, I think!

(Edit:) Kuhn also seems to forget that the Galilean telescope can be directed at a far-away tree or any other object. This is, of course, not a "new worldview", but enhanced sight!

:D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D

User avatar
Necromancer
Posts: 269
Joined: Thu Jul 30, 2015 12:30 am
Location: Metropolitan-Oslo, Norway, Europe
Contact:

Re: Scientific Paradigms are NOT true

Post by Necromancer » Wed Nov 01, 2017 9:32 am

Sorry. I've accidentally placed Case in Point #2 here: viewtopic.php?f=12&t=1526&p=337357#p337357.

Either way, I hope you enjoy it! :D

Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests