Thomas Kuhn (1922-1996)

Discussion of articles that appear in the magazine.

Moderators: AMod, iMod

Age
Posts: 20043
Joined: Sun Aug 05, 2018 8:17 am

Re: Thomas Kuhn (1922-1996)

Post by Age »

Sculptor wrote: Thu May 20, 2021 12:47 pm
Age wrote: Thu May 20, 2021 11:37 am
Sculptor wrote: Tue Apr 27, 2021 10:07 am So, the reason I mentioned those, and I could have mentioned many more discredited sciences, was to draw a distinction between the paradigms of philosophy and those of science. Old science does properly die and the paradigms are fully replaced, but not so with philosophy which still discusses ideas that ought to have been long ago abandoned yet are not.
Will you provide example/s of any idea/s, which, to you, "should have been long ago abandoned"?
Astrology, alchemy, the four humours, Phogistan theory, geocentric model of the unvierse, theory of the soul.
If you do not explain what part of those ideas, specifically, to you, "should have been long ago abandoned", then you really are not saying much, if any thing at all, really.

Why do you think this things are still discussed if they, supposedly, "should have been long ago abandoned"?
Age
Posts: 20043
Joined: Sun Aug 05, 2018 8:17 am

Re: Thomas Kuhn (1922-1996)

Post by Age »

Philosophy Now wrote: Mon Apr 22, 2019 11:46 pm Will Bouwman considers the development of a paradigmatic revolutionary.

https://philosophynow.org/issues/131/Th ... _1922-1996
You wrote,
"One major problem – which in fairness the logical positivists were well aware of – is that no amount of empirical evidence (or logic) can prove a scientific claim. The classic example is that a million white swans do not prove that every swan is white."

And, what IS SO OBVIOUS, and which you are well aware of, is that, so called, 'proper science' would NEVER claim such an absurd thing as "every swan is white".

The example you provided here is so MISUSED, and distorts what is ACTUALLT true which is; a True scientific claim is only made AFTER ALL the empirical evidence is in. In fact, a proper scientific claim is only made WITH proof, and therefore could NEVER be disproven NIR wrong.

What is best done is ANY and EVERY scientific claim is only made with facts, ONLY. And if this was the case, then ANY and ALL, so called, 'scientific claims' could NEVER be proven wrong. Like ANY and EVERY theory can be proven wrong. .
Age
Posts: 20043
Joined: Sun Aug 05, 2018 8:17 am

Re: Thomas Kuhn (1922-1996)

Post by Age »

Philosophy Now wrote: Mon Apr 22, 2019 11:46 pm Will Bouwman considers the development of a paradigmatic revolutionary.

https://philosophynow.org/issues/131/Th ... _1922-1996
You wrote;
"It is only in the rare occasions of scientific revolutions, when the data can absolutely not be made to fit the existing paradigm, that the paradigm itself changes. This is called ‘revolutionary science’ by Kuhn."

This here is a PRIME EXAMPLE of a current, in the days when this was written, existing paradigm that the Universe is expanding. That is; some people "make the data fit" the existing paradigm.

Although thee ACTUAL Truth is OBVIOUS, some people just can NOT SEE It. So, they will attempt to make data fit what they ALREADY see and believe is True.

This behavior happened with the earth in the centre of the Universe view as it does with the Universe is expanding view.

There was NEVER any actual evidence nor proof for either, but this never stopped some people "finding data".
Age
Posts: 20043
Joined: Sun Aug 05, 2018 8:17 am

Re: Thomas Kuhn (1922-1996)

Post by Age »

Philosophy Now wrote: Mon Apr 22, 2019 11:46 pm Will Bouwman considers the development of a paradigmatic revolutionary.

https://philosophynow.org/issues/131/Th ... _1922-1996
You wrote;
"This raises another issue for which Kuhn’s paradigm model is criticised. How do you decide whether you are looking at a duck or a rabbit? "

When you are Truly Honest, and thus Truly OPEN.

See, only when you are Truly OOEN and Honest, and so tell us what you are looking at, and thus seeing, only then can you be shown thee True and FULL picture.

"However, Kuhn had to concede that there is no objective way to establish which of those criteria is the most important, and so scientists would make their own mind up for subjective reasons."

But there IS an objective way, and thus a new scientific truth. That way, and truth, just needs to be expressed, or shown, and then learned. But as someone has already said, and suggested;

“a new scientific truth does not triumph by convincing opponents and making them see the light, but rather because its opponents eventually die, and a new generation grows up that is familiar with it" (the new way and new truth.

By the way you are a good story teller, which helps you in some ways.

But sadly your stories are just your own views, which are not necessarily true nor accurate, and so your views do not portray nor paint an accurateTrue picture, which would be what actually helps humanity, itself.
User avatar
Sculptor
Posts: 8483
Joined: Wed Jun 26, 2019 11:32 pm

Re: Thomas Kuhn (1922-1996)

Post by Sculptor »

Age wrote: Thu May 20, 2021 12:58 pm
Sculptor wrote: Thu May 20, 2021 12:47 pm
Age wrote: Thu May 20, 2021 11:37 am

Will you provide example/s of any idea/s, which, to you, "should have been long ago abandoned"?
Astrology, alchemy, the four humours, Phogistan theory, geocentric model of the unvierse, theory of the soul.
If you do not explain what part of those ideas, specifically, to you, "should have been long ago abandoned", then you really are not saying much, if any thing at all, really.

Why do you think this things are still discussed if they, supposedly, "should have been long ago abandoned"?
:lol:
Take a wild guess.
uwot
Posts: 6093
Joined: Mon Jul 23, 2012 7:21 am

Re: Thomas Kuhn (1922-1996)

Post by uwot »

Sculptor wrote: Thu May 20, 2021 12:43 pmI was not refering to your printed article, but your contrinutions to the forum.
Well, I didn't mean to limit things that people will think I'm a dick for to the articles and books I have published. Of course some of the other contributors will agree with your assessment, and frankly I would be horrified if I couldn't piss off some of those who, in my view, are dicks. For what it's worth, I think you are a bit thin skinned and know fuck all about science, but politically I think we're, if not on the same page, at least in the same library, and I respect anyone who is creative.
Sculptor wrote: Thu May 20, 2021 12:43 pmTip: it might serve your position were you not to go anonymous, but instead declare your interests honestly.
Yeah, but then there are others who think I should shut up about who I am, and what I have written. As I said, no matter what you say, or how you say it, someone is going to whine.
User avatar
Sculptor
Posts: 8483
Joined: Wed Jun 26, 2019 11:32 pm

Re: Thomas Kuhn (1922-1996)

Post by Sculptor »

uwot wrote: Thu May 20, 2021 7:27 pm
Sculptor wrote: Thu May 20, 2021 12:43 pmI was not refering to your printed article, but your contrinutions to the forum.
Well, I didn't mean to limit things that people will think I'm a dick for to the articles and books I have published. Of course some of the other contributors will agree with your assessment, and frankly I would be horrified if I couldn't piss off some of those who, in my view, are dicks. For what it's worth, I think you are a bit thin skinned and know fuck all about science, but politically I think we're, if not on the same page, at least in the same library, and I respect anyone who is creative.
Sculptor wrote: Thu May 20, 2021 12:43 pmTip: it might serve your position were you not to go anonymous, but instead declare your interests honestly.
Yeah, but then there are others who think I should shut up about who I am, and what I have written. As I said, no matter what you say, or how you say it, someone is going to whine.
Yes you definately should stop whining
uwot
Posts: 6093
Joined: Mon Jul 23, 2012 7:21 am

Re: Thomas Kuhn (1922-1996)

Post by uwot »

Sculptor wrote: Thu May 20, 2021 8:07 pmYes you definately should stop whining
Let's make it a win-win Sculptor; I'll stop whining when you stop beating your wife.
User avatar
A_Seagull
Posts: 907
Joined: Thu Jun 05, 2014 11:09 pm

Re: Thomas Kuhn (1922-1996)

Post by A_Seagull »

Sculptor wrote: Wed May 19, 2021 8:44 am
A_Seagull wrote: Tue May 18, 2021 11:10 pm
Sculptor wrote: Sun Apr 25, 2021 5:22 pm

Except that philosophy can have co-existing competing paradigms since it does not primarily relate the the physical world.
Yes certainly philosophy can have many co-existing paradigms. But ultimately they have to have some correlation with the physical world lest they are pure fantasy.
Yes but I was making a distinction between philosphy which can have co-existing paradigms (even when it relates to the physical world), and science which always has to seek to reconcile conflicts of this kind.
Yes, and my original point that philosophy is a paradigm enables one to examine the foundations and structure of the paradigm(s). Too often in Western philosophy this is ignored with the result that one gets little more than a collection of opinions, for the foundations and processes of inference are vague and implicit rather than being explicit. This makes the examination of the paradigms difficult to do. But at least one can examine critically ones own paradigm for then the foundations and processes of inference can be found.
Age
Posts: 20043
Joined: Sun Aug 05, 2018 8:17 am

Re: Thomas Kuhn (1922-1996)

Post by Age »

Sculptor wrote: Thu May 20, 2021 1:58 pm
Age wrote: Thu May 20, 2021 12:58 pm
Sculptor wrote: Thu May 20, 2021 12:47 pm

Astrology, alchemy, the four humours, Phogistan theory, geocentric model of the unvierse, theory of the soul.
If you do not explain what part of those ideas, specifically, to you, "should have been long ago abandoned", then you really are not saying much, if any thing at all, really.

Why do you think this things are still discussed if they, supposedly, "should have been long ago abandoned"?
:lol:
Take a wild guess.
This is ANOTHER PRIME EXAMPLE of a poster in this forum who makes claims but who is also completely and utterly incapable of supporting said claims.
User avatar
Sculptor
Posts: 8483
Joined: Wed Jun 26, 2019 11:32 pm

Re: Thomas Kuhn (1922-1996)

Post by Sculptor »

A_Seagull wrote: Thu May 20, 2021 8:52 pm
Sculptor wrote: Wed May 19, 2021 8:44 am
A_Seagull wrote: Tue May 18, 2021 11:10 pm

Yes certainly philosophy can have many co-existing paradigms. But ultimately they have to have some correlation with the physical world lest they are pure fantasy.
Yes but I was making a distinction between philosphy which can have co-existing paradigms (even when it relates to the physical world), and science which always has to seek to reconcile conflicts of this kind.
Yes, and my original point that philosophy is a paradigm enables one to examine the foundations and structure of the paradigm(s). Too often in Western philosophy this is ignored with the result that one gets little more than a collection of opinions, for the foundations and processes of inference are vague and implicit rather than being explicit. This makes the examination of the paradigms difficult to do. But at least one can examine critically ones own paradigm for then the foundations and processes of inference can be found.
Philosophy as a method of enquiry is where it is at its best. As soon as it starts making dogmatic statements is where the whole thing falls down. It is more about revealing consequences of actions and beliefs rather than ramming them down throats.
It can result in dogmaitic statements the are valid, most always in matters of natural philosophy, and in such cases where it is in agreement with science.
Aside from that My instinct would be to reject believe in all its forms and persue knowledge.
User avatar
Sculptor
Posts: 8483
Joined: Wed Jun 26, 2019 11:32 pm

Re: Thomas Kuhn (1922-1996)

Post by Sculptor »

Age wrote: Thu May 20, 2021 9:51 pm
Sculptor wrote: Thu May 20, 2021 1:58 pm
Age wrote: Thu May 20, 2021 12:58 pm

If you do not explain what part of those ideas, specifically, to you, "should have been long ago abandoned", then you really are not saying much, if any thing at all, really.

Why do you think this things are still discussed if they, supposedly, "should have been long ago abandoned"?
:lol:
Take a wild guess.
This is ANOTHER PRIME EXAMPLE of a poster in this forum who makes claims but who is also completely and utterly incapable of supporting said claims.
This is why I usually have you on ignore.
Age
Posts: 20043
Joined: Sun Aug 05, 2018 8:17 am

Re: Thomas Kuhn (1922-1996)

Post by Age »

Sculptor wrote: Fri May 21, 2021 11:01 am
Age wrote: Thu May 20, 2021 9:51 pm
Sculptor wrote: Thu May 20, 2021 1:58 pm

:lol:
Take a wild guess.
This is ANOTHER PRIME EXAMPLE of a poster in this forum who makes claims but who is also completely and utterly incapable of supporting said claims.
This is why I usually have you on ignore.
So, you, usually, and supposedly, have me on ignore because I, sometimes, use your comments and remarks as prime examples and/or because I point out when you are completely and utterly incapable of being able to back up and support your claims, correct?

If this is not correct, then WHY, exactly, do you, supposedly and/or usually, have me on ignore?
uwot
Posts: 6093
Joined: Mon Jul 23, 2012 7:21 am

Re: Thomas Kuhn (1922-1996)

Post by uwot »

Sculptor wrote: Fri May 21, 2021 11:00 amPhilosophy as a method of enquiry is where it is at its best. As soon as it starts making dogmatic statements is where the whole thing falls down.
One of the main points Kuhn made in The Structure of Scientific Revolutions is that the same is true of science.
Sculptor wrote: Fri May 21, 2021 11:00 amAside from that My instinct would be to reject believe in all its forms and persue knowledge.
That's what all the Truth Seekers and Prophets think they are doing.
User avatar
Sculptor
Posts: 8483
Joined: Wed Jun 26, 2019 11:32 pm

Re: Thomas Kuhn (1922-1996)

Post by Sculptor »

uwot wrote: Sat May 22, 2021 9:43 am
Sculptor wrote: Fri May 21, 2021 11:00 amPhilosophy as a method of enquiry is where it is at its best. As soon as it starts making dogmatic statements is where the whole thing falls down.
One of the main points Kuhn made in The Structure of Scientific Revolutions is that the same is true of science.
But it is disengenuous to use this thought to suggest that philosphy and science are no different in all or even most aspects.
Philosophy can entertain competing even contradictory paradigms, whilst science can only do so temporarily. The physical world abhors contradiction, and so science cannot cope with it, whilst philosophy absolutley thrives on it.
Sculptor wrote: Fri May 21, 2021 11:00 amAside from that My instinct would be to reject believe in all its forms and persue knowledge.
That's what all the Truth Seekers and Prophets think they are doing.
But science is only one aspect of philosophy and is not the same as philosophy.
Pardigms only exist at the peripheries. Despite changes in paradigm, core science is unchanged. Knowledge happens and results are replicated; none of this may be said of non-natural philosophy.
Post Reply