Thomas Kuhn (1922-1996)

Discussion of articles that appear in the magazine.

Moderators: AMod, iMod

User avatar
-1-
Posts: 2888
Joined: Thu Sep 07, 2017 1:08 am

Re: Never mind -1-

Post by -1- »

uwot wrote: Wed Apr 24, 2019 2:33 pm
Wouldn't take it to heart. No one listens to sociologists
.
Dat true. I used to know one. He wore ear muffs every time he spake, lest he hear himself and have to listen to himself.
uwot
Posts: 6093
Joined: Mon Jul 23, 2012 7:21 am

Re: Thomas Kuhn (1922-1996)

Post by uwot »

Here ya go.
owl of Minerva
Posts: 373
Joined: Wed Jan 23, 2019 9:16 pm

Re: Thomas Kuhn (1922-1996)

Post by owl of Minerva »

Thomas Kuhn (1922--1996), this is an interesting article on Kuhn. The worldview of a scientist could be considered the paradigm within which he works. Einstein greatest wish was to understand light. It was baffling to him that the four dimensions of space time did not reveal the secrets of light; how it is transmitted. That may require a paradigm that includes a fifth dimension; the transcendental. Both Einstein and Spinoza viewed reality as being confined to the four dimensions of space time; neither believed in a transcendental reality.
uwot
Posts: 6093
Joined: Mon Jul 23, 2012 7:21 am

Re: Thomas Kuhn (1922-1996)

Post by uwot »

owl of Minerva wrote: Fri Apr 23, 2021 7:50 pmThomas Kuhn (1922--1996), this is an interesting article on Kuhn.
Thank you.
owl of Minerva wrote: Fri Apr 23, 2021 7:50 pmThe worldview of a scientist could be considered the paradigm within which he works. Einstein greatest wish was to understand light. It was baffling to him that the four dimensions of space time did not reveal the secrets of light; how it is transmitted. That may require a paradigm that includes a fifth dimension; the transcendental. Both Einstein and Spinoza viewed reality as being confined to the four dimensions of space time; neither believed in a transcendental reality.
It depends what you mean by transcendental. I don't want to put words in your mouth, but one interpretation is simply 'beyond experience'. In that sense it's the epistemological version of the ontological 'metaphysics'. Einstein certainly believed in metaphysics - at least by 1915. The general theory of relativity is based on the idea that 'spacetime' is a substance. Prior to this, Newtonian mechanics treated space as the place where things happen and time as the amount of things that happen. So 'space' is not a thing that can be directly experienced, it is simply what you get where there isn't any matter, so 'space' is infinite. 'Time' can be interpreted in different ways. To some people it is something that has to exist for things too happen; so in that sense it too is infinite. For others time only exists if things are happening. One thing we do know is that we can only measure time by counting things happening. Depending on the situation, we might experience boredom or excitement, for example; we don't directly experience time and clocks will tick at their own rate regardless.
Anyway, before I really start to ramble: to Einstein 'spacetime' was 'physical' in the sense that it is a real thing with mechanical properties, but 'metaphysical' in the sense that it can't directly be measured, it can only be inferred from the behaviour of things that can be measured; and measuring stuff is what physics is about. So spacetime is 'transcendental' in that it can't be experienced, it is only the behaviour of things we can see, hear, touch or otherwise experience that we experience.
Good luck with that. I think I've confused myself.
seeds
Posts: 2127
Joined: Tue Aug 02, 2016 9:31 pm

Re: Thomas Kuhn (1922-1996)

Post by seeds »

uwot wrote: Sat Apr 24, 2021 2:23 pm ...Anyway, before I really start to ramble: to Einstein 'spacetime' was 'physical' in the sense that it is a real thing with mechanical properties, but 'metaphysical' in the sense that it can't directly be measured, it can only be inferred from the behaviour of things that can be measured; and measuring stuff is what physics is about. So spacetime is 'transcendental' in that it can't be experienced, it is only the behaviour of things we can see, hear, touch or otherwise experience that we experience.
It is no secret that I am an idealist who strongly believes that all of reality...

(or at least all of the reality of this one particular universe)

...is transpiring within the unfathomably advanced mind of a higher consciousness.

In which case, I speculatively imagine Einstein's "spacetime"...

(which involves the scientifically verified assertion that empty space seems to be composed of an invisible (yet "real") fabric that bends and contorts in the presence of strong gravitational fields)

...as being a kind of living "emulsion," so to speak, or perhaps a kind of ethereal "liquid-like" essence in which the three-dimensional features of the universe are not only suspended, but are also infused with.

And that would be in the exact same way that the three-dimensional features of our dreams are suspended within the living essence of our own minds. Indeed, I am talking about a living mental substance that (just like the universe) also presents the appearance of there being empty space between the individual structures in our dreams.

So in that sense, we each carry around our own separate and autonomous dimension of Einsteinian "spacetime" right within our own skulls.

The point is that Einstein's "spacetime" is indeed something that is tangibly "real" (albeit difficult to visualize).

(Perhaps it even has something to do with the yet to be resolved mystery of what it is that is waving in quantum mechanics.)

As you so astutely pointed out in your "Intelligent design. Sort of." thread:
uwot wrote: Sun Apr 18, 2021 11:30 pm You and I have very different interpretations of reality. How fabulous that the facts support either just as well eh?
_______
uwot
Posts: 6093
Joined: Mon Jul 23, 2012 7:21 am

Re: Thomas Kuhn (1922-1996)

Post by uwot »

seeds wrote: Sat Apr 24, 2021 9:45 pmIn which case, I speculatively imagine Einstein's "spacetime"...
...as being a kind of living "emulsion," so to speak, or perhaps a kind of ethereal "liquid-like" essence in which the three-dimensional features of the universe are not only suspended, but are also infused with.
Nothing wrong with a bit of speculating. From a spacetime/cosmic consciousness point of view, I think in between you and I is Erwin Schrodinger:
What we observe as material bodies and forces are nothing but shapes and variations in the structure of space. The world is given to me only once, not one existing and one perceived. Subject and object are only one.
seeds
Posts: 2127
Joined: Tue Aug 02, 2016 9:31 pm

Re: Thomas Kuhn (1922-1996)

Post by seeds »

uwot wrote: Sun Apr 25, 2021 12:27 pm
seeds wrote: Sat Apr 24, 2021 9:45 pmIn which case, I speculatively imagine Einstein's "spacetime"...
...as being a kind of living "emulsion," so to speak, or perhaps a kind of ethereal "liquid-like" essence in which the three-dimensional features of the universe are not only suspended, but are also infused with.
Nothing wrong with a bit of speculating. From a spacetime/cosmic consciousness point of view, I think in between you and I is Erwin Schrodinger:
What we observe as material bodies and forces are nothing but shapes and variations in the structure of space. The world is given to me only once, not one existing and one perceived. Subject and object are only one.
Yes, and perhaps what is also somewhere between you and I is reflected in something that Kuhn said:
Thomas Kuhn wrote: “All significant breakthroughs are break -“withs” old ways of thinking.”
In practical terms, how do you personally interpret what Schrödinger was saying in the quote you provided?
_______
User avatar
Sculptor
Posts: 8477
Joined: Wed Jun 26, 2019 11:32 pm

Re: Thomas Kuhn (1922-1996)

Post by Sculptor »

A_Seagull wrote: Mon Apr 22, 2019 11:57 pm Kuhn's work on paradigms applies not only to the philosophy of science but to the philosophy of philosophy as well.
Except that philosophy can have co-existing competing paradigms since it does not primarily relate the the physical world.
uwot
Posts: 6093
Joined: Mon Jul 23, 2012 7:21 am

Re: Thomas Kuhn (1922-1996)

Post by uwot »

seeds wrote: Sun Apr 25, 2021 4:03 pm...perhaps what is also somewhere between you and I is reflected in something that Kuhn said:
Thomas Kuhn wrote:“All significant breakthroughs are break -“withs” old ways of thinking.”
Ah but: One cannot conceive of anything so strange and so implausible that it has not already been said by one philosopher or another.
René Descartes
Or even: There is nothing so absurd that some philosopher has not already said it.
Cicero
seeds wrote: Sun Apr 25, 2021 4:03 pmIn practical terms, how do you personally interpret what Schrödinger was saying in the quote you provided?
That space is "perhaps a kind of ethereal "liquid-like" essence".
uwot
Posts: 6093
Joined: Mon Jul 23, 2012 7:21 am

Re: Thomas Kuhn (1922-1996)

Post by uwot »

Sculptor wrote: Sun Apr 25, 2021 5:22 pm
A_Seagull wrote: Mon Apr 22, 2019 11:57 pm Kuhn's work on paradigms applies not only to the philosophy of science but to the philosophy of philosophy as well.
Except that philosophy can have co-existing competing paradigms since it does not primarily relate the the physical world.
As the title of Kuhn's book the Structure of Scientific Revolutions suggests, the idea was that new paradigms come in and completely replace old ones. Few philosophers of science believe that and for practical science, it is demonstrably untrue. Kuhn published the Structure in 1962, one year after Kennedy committed the US to the Apollo mission, which used the antiquated and wrong, but perfectly functional Newtonian law of gravitation. Science is less about believing things than making them happen.
User avatar
Sculptor
Posts: 8477
Joined: Wed Jun 26, 2019 11:32 pm

Re: Thomas Kuhn (1922-1996)

Post by Sculptor »

uwot wrote: Mon Apr 26, 2021 8:28 am
Sculptor wrote: Sun Apr 25, 2021 5:22 pm
A_Seagull wrote: Mon Apr 22, 2019 11:57 pm Kuhn's work on paradigms applies not only to the philosophy of science but to the philosophy of philosophy as well.
Except that philosophy can have co-existing competing paradigms since it does not primarily relate the the physical world.
As the title of Kuhn's book the Structure of Scientific Revolutions suggests, the idea was that new paradigms come in and completely replace old ones. Few philosophers of science believe that and for practical science, it is demonstrably untrue. Kuhn published the Structure in 1962, one year after Kennedy committed the US to the Apollo mission, which used the antiquated and wrong, but perfectly functional Newtonian law of gravitation. Science is less about believing things than making them happen.
Just because Newton still has limited useage is not enough to dispense with Kuhn's thesis.
Not that your point relates directly to my previous post.
uwot
Posts: 6093
Joined: Mon Jul 23, 2012 7:21 am

Re: Thomas Kuhn (1922-1996)

Post by uwot »

Sculptor wrote: Mon Apr 26, 2021 10:51 amJust because Newton still has limited useage is not enough to dispense with Kuhn's thesis.
Not that your point relates directly to my previous post.
Well, even Kuhn didn't believe that new paradigms always completely replace old ones. The point is that even science, which does relate primarily to the physical world, can have co-existing competing paradigms - relativity and quantum mechanics, for example.
owl of Minerva
Posts: 373
Joined: Wed Jan 23, 2019 9:16 pm

Re: Thomas Kuhn (1922-1996)

Post by owl of Minerva »

uwot wrote:

"It depends what you mean by transcendental."

The ether, or aether, if the subtlest element of space time, could be considered metaphysical; the fifth and last element with space in this dimension. Its role would be the transmission of light and also to act as a barrier to other dimensions. Even if enmeshed with each other, dimensions would still require a barrier to retain their individual autonomy. Another role for the ether could be the preservation of forms for a specific duration in the flux of constant change. If it is brought back from being thought defunct it should retain its name, as it was known to philosophers over the centuries. It should not be considered a new discovery. Renaming leads to a disconnect in the continuity of what was already known until discounted.
User avatar
Sculptor
Posts: 8477
Joined: Wed Jun 26, 2019 11:32 pm

Re: Thomas Kuhn (1922-1996)

Post by Sculptor »

uwot wrote: Mon Apr 26, 2021 11:17 am
Sculptor wrote: Mon Apr 26, 2021 10:51 amJust because Newton still has limited useage is not enough to dispense with Kuhn's thesis.
Not that your point relates directly to my previous post.
Well, even Kuhn didn't believe that new paradigms always completely replace old ones. The point is that even science, which does relate primarily to the physical world, can have co-existing competing paradigms - relativity and quantum mechanics, for example.
Do you not think one is going to have to win out in the end?
Where is Phlogistan theory; theory of the Humours; Steady State theory; Lamarkism; Darwins gemules etc
uwot
Posts: 6093
Joined: Mon Jul 23, 2012 7:21 am

Re: Thomas Kuhn (1922-1996)

Post by uwot »

Sculptor wrote: Mon Apr 26, 2021 8:38 pmDo you not think one is going to have to win out in the end?
Where is Phlogistan theory; theory of the Humours; Steady State theory; Lamarkism; Darwins gemules etc
All dead and buried. Yeah, that was the basic premise of Popper's falsification and of course some hypotheses are demonstrably wrong. The thing is that most physicists make a living by making things happen and if, for example, the mathematics of Newton's law of universal gravitation will get the job done, no one is going to worry that the idea of absolute and empty space it's based on is known to be untrue - it's that general rule that leads more pragmatic physicists to say philosophy is useless. Since Kuhn, Hume's critique of causality has morphed into underdetermination. Simply put; while human science might prove some theories wrong, human ingenuity will always be able to come up with alternative theories which explain exactly the same phenomena equally well. The other thing is whether a theory will predict all future observations; you can't know that until you have observed all future observations. So even if we do get to The Truth, we won't know it.
Post Reply