Lol but I was being serious!!
Thomas Kuhn (1922-1996)
Re: Thomas Kuhn (1922-1996)
The mistake that many people make, including entire university departments, is that Paul Feyerabend's endorsement of 'anything goes' equates to 'anything is true'. The most prominent, and most damaging example of this schoolboy error are the MAGA headbangers who believe the 'alternative facts' described by Kellyanne Conway are actual facts. The risible irony being that Trumpian boneheads, who have been primed to bark about 'post-modernism', are the worst casualty of the very thing they complain about.
The publication in 1962 of The Structure of Scientific Revolutions and La Pensée Sauvage changed everything. Long story short: Kuhn had referenced Ludwik Fleck, Michael Polanyi and Max Planck, a biologist, chemist and physicist respectively, all of whom pointed out that there are competing 'thought collectives' or 'research groups' in their own fields. Not only is 'science' impossible to define, because of the many different disciplines, the individual disciplines are not some homogeneous gloop of conformity. It was an invitation to non-scientists to stop telling scientists what they should do, and start looking at what they actually do.
David Bloor at Edinburgh and Bruno Latour in France did just that. Bloor is best known for 'the strong program'; basically this is sociological research into why certain groups of scientists follow the line of research that they do. Latour is famous for the Actor-Network Theory, which is probably most famous for being batshit crazy, but is really just taking the empirical imperative to its natural conclusion and simply treating everything in a 'laboratory setting' as an equal object of observation - so a teat pipette has as much of a rôle as a professor of chemistry. What they demonstrated, and what anyone who spends any time looking at how scientists actually operate quickly discovers, is that scientists are human beings too - some are brilliant, some are bonkers; some are diligent, some are lazy; some are virtuous, some are corrupt, you know - human. In effect, the hard of thinking have inverted 'All scientists are human' and falsely deduced that all humans are scientists - that their fruitloopery is as valid as things said by people who know what they are talking about. And of course the internet has given nut jobs a platform to share their utter bollocks, such as this forum.
There are versions of 'the multiverse' which are fundamentally Steady State Theory. Solid State is something else.Sculptor wrote: ↑Tue May 25, 2021 10:02 amFeynman's comment is optimistic, as he knew pretty well that many of his collegues made a choice - a choice upon which their career was staked. Such people were held in great respect, such as Fred Hoyle and his Solid State Theory. That choice was made for subjective reasons. He coined the term "Big Bang" has a joke, he thought is was all a bit too creationist. His paradigm is DEAD. No one is going to revive it.
Just for the record, Feynman was a critic of string theory.
If your argument is that new paradigms replace old paradigms, how does this help?
There are many examples of hypotheses which turned out to be wrong. It is less common for paradigms to be completely overturned. The success of a paradigm is generally down to its application - it works. It could be argued that such instrumentalism is itself a paradigm, established with the founding of the Royal Society and codified in the General Scholium, an appendix to the second edition of Newton's Principia - published by the Royal Society. A feature of the Principia was Newton's Law of universal gravitation, still an important scientific tool, despite being superseded by general relativity, which itself has at least a dozen serious challengers.
Plenty of career opportunities in politics and radio for climate deniers.Sculptor wrote: ↑Tue May 25, 2021 10:02 am...we may never speak of the "inevitable" until the end of history itself. Paradigms do assert themselves, despite there neing existing contrary theories. The big emerging one at the moment is "Climate Change"and it close cousin "Global Warmning". Denial of either is a career ending decision. Append "".. with reference to climate change" on your research proposal and you get special Brownie points as it opens up new avenues to more funding.
Re: Thomas Kuhn (1922-1996)
There are very few philosphical matters than have been totally abandoned. Whilst much has been refined, all the old arguments are still with us. Philosophy is not about solutions but about asking questions anf point out possible consequence.
Science is about describing the universe in ever more detailed ways. Buckets dross are no longer part of science, and now remain is fringe subjects like new age BS astrology, herbalism, animism ad nauseam.
Philosophy still entertains these ideas in a critical and analytical way.
Re: Thomas Kuhn (1922-1996)
I meant Steady State, obviously.uwot wrote: ↑Wed May 26, 2021 8:09 amThe mistake that many people make, including entire university departments, is that Paul Feyerabend's endorsement of 'anything goes' equates to 'anything is true'. The most prominent, and most damaging example of this schoolboy error are the MAGA headbangers who believe the 'alternative facts' described by Kellyanne Conway are actual facts. The risible irony being that Trumpian boneheads, who have been primed to bark about 'post-modernism', are the worst casualty of the very thing they complain about.
The publication in 1962 of The Structure of Scientific Revolutions and La Pensée Sauvage changed everything. Long story short: Kuhn had referenced Ludwik Fleck, Michael Polanyi and Max Planck, a biologist, chemist and physicist respectively, all of whom pointed out that there are competing 'thought collectives' or 'research groups' in their own fields. Not only is 'science' impossible to define, because of the many different disciplines, the individual disciplines are not some homogeneous gloop of conformity. It was an invitation to non-scientists to stop telling scientists what they should do, and start looking at what they actually do.
David Bloor at Edinburgh and Bruno Latour in France did just that. Bloor is best known for 'the strong program'; basically this is sociological research into why certain groups of scientists follow the line of research that they do. Latour is famous for the Actor-Network Theory, which is probably most famous for being batshit crazy, but is really just taking the empirical imperative to its natural conclusion and simply treating everything in a 'laboratory setting' as an equal object of observation - so a teat pipette has as much of a rôle as a professor of chemistry. What they demonstrated, and what anyone who spends any time looking at how scientists actually operate quickly discovers, is that scientists are human beings too - some are brilliant, some are bonkers; some are diligent, some are lazy; some are virtuous, some are corrupt, you know - human. In effect, the hard of thinking have inverted 'All scientists are human' and falsely deduced that all humans are scientists - that their fruitloopery is as valid as things said by people who know what they are talking about. And of course the internet has given nut jobs a platform to share their utter bollocks, such as this forum.There are versions of 'the multiverse' which are fundamentally Steady State Theory. Solid State is something else.Sculptor wrote: ↑Tue May 25, 2021 10:02 amFeynman's comment is optimistic, as he knew pretty well that many of his collegues made a choice - a choice upon which their career was staked. Such people were held in great respect, such as Fred Hoyle and his Solid State Theory. That choice was made for subjective reasons. He coined the term "Big Bang" has a joke, he thought is was all a bit too creationist. His paradigm is DEAD. No one is going to revive it.
Multiverse is fringe, peripheral.
You can point to as many kooky cosmologies as you like. This does not deny Kuhn's thesis
Well clearly before the new paradigms are accepted, there is always a bunch of possible repleacements. As I say above, your denial of Kuhn is empty if all you have is pointing out potential alternatives.Just for the record, Feynman was a critic of string theory.If your argument is that new paradigms replace old paradigms, how does this help?
So what?There are many examples of hypotheses which turned out to be wrong. It is less common for paradigms to be completely overturned. The success of a paradigm is generally down to its application - it works. It could be argued that such instrumentalism is itself a paradigm, established with the founding of the Royal Society and codified in the General Scholium, an appendix to the second edition of Newton's Principia - published by the Royal Society. A feature of the Principia was Newton's Law of universal gravitation, still an important scientific tool, despite being superseded by general relativity, which itself has at least a dozen serious challengers.Plenty of career opportunities in politics and radio for climate deniers.Sculptor wrote: ↑Tue May 25, 2021 10:02 am...we may never speak of the "inevitable" until the end of history itself. Paradigms do assert themselves, despite there neing existing contrary theories. The big emerging one at the moment is "Climate Change"and it close cousin "Global Warmning". Denial of either is a career ending decision. Append "".. with reference to climate change" on your research proposal and you get special Brownie points as it opens up new avenues to more funding.
Re: Thomas Kuhn (1922-1996)
These are just some of the most prominent advocates of one or other multiverse: Sean Carroll, David Deutsch, Brian Greene, Alan Guth, Stephen Hawking, Michio Kaku, Leonard Susskind, Max Tegmark, Neil deGrasse Tyson. It is not fringe, peripheral or kooky.
As I said in the article: For better or worse, Kuhn’s book changed the way science is viewed. Science is no longer straightforwardly an ideal method of gaining knowledge to which people should aspire; rather it is something shaped by ordinary, and a few extraordinary, people.
Kuhn spent much of his subsequent career elucidating and dealing with the fallout. It’s a major part of his legacy that now so does almost everyone else in the philosophy of science. I am not denying Kuhn's thesis. 'The Structure of Scientific Revolutions' is over 200 pages long and is much more nuanced than 'all theories that are replaced are completely thrown in the dustbin'.
Re: Thomas Kuhn (1922-1996)
Whimsey.
Just because you can image a theory does not mean it has any merit.
This is pretty fanciful. And with so many other ideas which are more parsimonious, this is not going to stand the test of time. Its a solution looking for a problem sorted more easily by other means.
Personally I think it is shameful of science to take it seriously.
My main study was archaeology. We found Kuhn very useful in understanding the tyrrany of the idea of the previous generation of archaeological theories; that theory is firmly located in the political and social assumptions in which they are built; that such assumptions may be fully challenged to build deeper understanding in the interpretation of the data.
As I said in the article: For better or worse, Kuhn’s book changed the way science is viewed. Science is no longer straightforwardly an ideal method of gaining knowledge to which people should aspire; rather it is something shaped by ordinary, and a few extraordinary, people.
Kuhn spent much of his subsequent career elucidating and dealing with the fallout. It’s a major part of his legacy that now so does almost everyone else in the philosophy of science. I am not denying Kuhn's thesis. 'The Structure of Scientific Revolutions' is over 200 pages long and is much more nuanced than 'all theories that are replaced are completely thrown in the dustbin'.
I would imagine he would also be very useful in similar fields that are are "scientific" without being science, and "humanities" without being overly arty: anthroplogy, psychology, sociology come to mind.
Re: Thomas Kuhn (1922-1996)
Well, one man's whimsey is another seminal 20th century philosopher of science's bold conjecture.
There is matter, life and consciousness. Can you honestly say you have an explanation that isn't fanciful?
I like the fact that some scientists do.
Well, me being an historian and philosopher of science, archaeologists have my respect and gratitude, but with the same hat on, have you lost your sense of irony? If theory is "firmly located in the political and social assumptions in which they are built", how does any "deeper understanding" escape politics and society?Sculptor wrote: ↑Wed May 26, 2021 2:53 pmMy main study was archaeology. We found Kuhn very useful in understanding the tyrrany of the idea of the previous generation of archaeological theories; that theory is firmly located in the political and social assumptions in which they are built; that such assumptions may be fully challenged to build deeper understanding in the interpretation of the data.
As I mentioned, Bloor and Latour, along with many others, have built very successful careers responding to Kuhn.
Re: Thomas Kuhn (1922-1996)
I have no explanation. And neither has science. It has only description.uwot wrote: ↑Wed May 26, 2021 7:38 pmWell, one man's whimsey is another seminal 20th century philosopher of science's bold conjecture.There is matter, life and consciousness. Can you honestly say you have an explanation that isn't fanciful?
To adopt multiple universes you would have to also abandon the conservation of matter and energy.
SO I do not think this particular bit of whimsey is going to have any legs.
It's about self reflection. It is common enough for the endemic assumptions we carry to impose their ugly faces as if they are perfectly objective. When you understand this, you are, at least, humbled to attempt emic considerations, rather than just run away with insensitive and irrelevant prognistications on the past. It's about trying to unpack the unknown knowns as Zizeck might say. In particular David Clarke produced a series of pseudo-scientific interpretations in archaeology. His paradigm was known as "processual archaeology". It was pretty hideous stuff relying on tragically partial evidence, assuming the "record" to be viable sample data, unreflective, etic. How many man hours and biomass in food did it take to build Stonehenge? Who cares?I like the fact that some scientists do.Well, me being an historian and philosopher of science, archaeologists have my respect and gratitude, but with the same hat on, have you lost your sense of irony? If theory is "firmly located in the political and social assumptions in which they are built", how does any "deeper understanding" escape politics and society?Sculptor wrote: ↑Wed May 26, 2021 2:53 pmMy main study was archaeology. We found Kuhn very useful in understanding the tyrrany of the idea of the previous generation of archaeological theories; that theory is firmly located in the political and social assumptions in which they are built; that such assumptions may be fully challenged to build deeper understanding in the interpretation of the data.
When I studied I was lucky enough to be taught by Shanks and TIlley who took it to pieces and collected a smorgasbord of different interpretive weapons from Marxism to Phenomonology, Structuralism to Post-structuralism, Critical Theory. Nothing was ruled out. each appraoch had differnt things to say about the evidence.
As I mentioned, Bloor and Latour, along with many others, have built very successful careers responding to Kuhn.
Re: Thomas Kuhn (1922-1996)
Then all you have are opinions, nothing more.Sculptor wrote: ↑Wed May 26, 2021 12:30 pmThere are very few philosphical matters than have been totally abandoned. Whilst much has been refined, all the old arguments are still with us. Philosophy is not about solutions but about asking questions anf point out possible consequence.
Science is about describing the universe in ever more detailed ways. Buckets dross are no longer part of science, and now remain is fringe subjects like new age BS astrology, herbalism, animism ad nauseam.
Philosophy still entertains these ideas in a critical and analytical way.
Re: Thomas Kuhn (1922-1996)
Is this an objection, or just an observation?A_Seagull wrote: ↑Mon May 31, 2021 3:51 amThen all you have are opinions, nothing more.Sculptor wrote: ↑Wed May 26, 2021 12:30 pmThere are very few philosphical matters than have been totally abandoned. Whilst much has been refined, all the old arguments are still with us. Philosophy is not about solutions but about asking questions anf point out possible consequence.
Science is about describing the universe in ever more detailed ways. Buckets dross are no longer part of science, and now remain is fringe subjects like new age BS astrology, herbalism, animism ad nauseam.
Philosophy still entertains these ideas in a critical and analytical way.
Re: Thomas Kuhn (1922-1996)
I think that there has always been cross pollination. No field of study is completely oblivious to any other, and good ideas can come from anywhere. Different subjects have different languages; emic and etic are not terms I am familiar with, but the concepts are perfectly straightforward. Having looked them up, it is interesting that they were coined 8 years before the publication of Kuhn's Structure of Scientific Revolutions, which in that light looks even more like an example of an idea whose time has come.Sculptor wrote: ↑Wed May 26, 2021 10:33 pmIt's about self reflection. It is common enough for the endemic assumptions we carry to impose their ugly faces as if they are perfectly objective. When you understand this, you are, at least, humbled to attempt emic considerations, rather than just run away with insensitive and irrelevant prognistications on the past. It's about trying to unpack the unknown knowns as Zizeck might say. In particular David Clarke produced a series of pseudo-scientific interpretations in archaeology. His paradigm was known as "processual archaeology". It was pretty hideous stuff relying on tragically partial evidence, assuming the "record" to be viable sample data, unreflective, etic. How many man hours and biomass in food did it take to build Stonehenge? Who cares?
When I studied I was lucky enough to be taught by Shanks and TIlley who took it to pieces and collected a smorgasbord of different interpretive weapons from Marxism to Phenomonology, Structuralism to Post-structuralism, Critical Theory. Nothing was ruled out. each appraoch had differnt things to say about the evidence.
Re: Thomas Kuhn (1922-1996)
I do not agree with the word "always". Interdisciplinary cross pollination is a very recent developement in what you might call "post-moderism", which is itself a word borrowed from art, but has enriched many humanities studies. I think there are very good reasons why this would not apply directly to the hard sciences of biology, chemistry and physics, thought they themselves are all the more richer for consulting each other, and the boundaries of those are clearly fluid.uwot wrote: ↑Mon May 31, 2021 1:25 pmI think that there has always been cross pollination. No field of study is completely oblivious to any other, and good ideas can come from anywhere. Different subjects have different languages; emic and etic are not terms I am familiar with, but the concepts are perfectly straightforward. Having looked them up, it is interesting that they were coined 8 years before the publication of Kuhn's Structure of Scientific Revolutions, which in that light looks even more like an example of an idea whose time has come.Sculptor wrote: ↑Wed May 26, 2021 10:33 pmIt's about self reflection. It is common enough for the endemic assumptions we carry to impose their ugly faces as if they are perfectly objective. When you understand this, you are, at least, humbled to attempt emic considerations, rather than just run away with insensitive and irrelevant prognistications on the past. It's about trying to unpack the unknown knowns as Zizeck might say. In particular David Clarke produced a series of pseudo-scientific interpretations in archaeology. His paradigm was known as "processual archaeology". It was pretty hideous stuff relying on tragically partial evidence, assuming the "record" to be viable sample data, unreflective, etic. How many man hours and biomass in food did it take to build Stonehenge? Who cares?
When I studied I was lucky enough to be taught by Shanks and TIlley who took it to pieces and collected a smorgasbord of different interpretive weapons from Marxism to Phenomonology, Structuralism to Post-structuralism, Critical Theory. Nothing was ruled out. each appraoch had differnt things to say about the evidence.
There have been times in the past where everything, absolutely everything, was filtered through the church. Even as recently as Darwin, all wishing to follow a course of study had to take holy orders. This was not cross pollination; it was theoretical incest.
It is of great amusement to me that creationist wishing to colonise Darwin find out that he was a minister (technically at least) react with glee, as if they have found out a deep dark secret. Darwin himself had to struggle with his rejection of religion, as it was the disabling endemic assumption of his time that was hard to shrug off.
-
- Posts: 373
- Joined: Wed Jan 23, 2019 9:16 pm
Re: Thomas Kuhn (1922-1996)
Can't wait for quantum biology to take off. That should be interesting. Very interesting. Next to it quantum computing could be a yawn.
Re: Thomas Kuhn (1922-1996)
It is an observation. The practice of philosophy is little more than a parlour game.Sculptor wrote: ↑Mon May 31, 2021 11:13 amIs this an objection, or just an observation?A_Seagull wrote: ↑Mon May 31, 2021 3:51 amThen all you have are opinions, nothing more.Sculptor wrote: ↑Wed May 26, 2021 12:30 pm
There are very few philosphical matters than have been totally abandoned. Whilst much has been refined, all the old arguments are still with us. Philosophy is not about solutions but about asking questions anf point out possible consequence.
Science is about describing the universe in ever more detailed ways. Buckets dross are no longer part of science, and now remain is fringe subjects like new age BS astrology, herbalism, animism ad nauseam.
Philosophy still entertains these ideas in a critical and analytical way.
Re: Thomas Kuhn (1922-1996)
I do not think anything I said would engender that response, no.
Nothing wrong with opinions. One of Philosophy's greatest achivements is offering methods for knowing what questions make sense; how to ask questions; what the answers might mean; what is it like to ask them; and what are the underlying bases for those opinions you say are "all you have".