Paul Mawdsley Posted September 23, 2008 Share Posted September 23, 2008 I was reading a little on Thomas Kuhn's structure of scientific revolutions. What is a paradigm shift? Is it a shift in the metaphysical context from which we do science? And could we call a scientific paradigm an objective metaphysics?Early reading, early questions.Paul Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tjohnson Posted September 23, 2008 Share Posted September 23, 2008 From that link ;A defense Kuhn gives against the objection that his account of science from The Structure of Scientific Revolutions results in relativism can be found in an essay by Kuhn called "Objectivity, Value Judgment, and Theory Choice."[4] In this essay, he reiteriates five criteria from the penultimate chapter of SSR that determine (or help determine, more properly) theory choice:1 - Accurate - empirically adequate with experimentation and observation2 - Consistent - internally consistent, but also externally consistent with other theories3 - Broad Scope - a theory's consequencies should extend beyond that which it was initially designed to explain4 - Simple - the simplest explanation, principally similar to Occam's Razor5 - Fruitful - a theory should disclose new phenomena or new relationships among phenomenaInteresting that nowhere on this list does the criteria of "truth" appear. I submit that this is because it is not possible to establish absolute "truth" of a statement, despite many people's desire to do so. I have heard it said on this list that Rand had a passion for finding the truth well, if so, then it was doomed to failure. The closest we can get to the "truth" is outlined above and is employed by science generally speaking, not in philosophy. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BaalChatzaf Posted September 23, 2008 Share Posted September 23, 2008 I was reading a little on Thomas Kuhn's structure of scientific revolutions. What is a paradigm shift? Is it a shift in the metaphysical context from which we do science? And could we call a scientific paradigm an objective metaphysics?Early reading, early questions.PaulA paradigm is a way of construing the facts. Multi-paradigms are a result of the basic truth that a finite set of facts do not uniquely determine a theory to explain them. Einstein pointed this out many times. Theories are synthetic creations of the human intellect, and are not mechanically ground out from lists of facts. Kuhn built a view of how science changes based on this basic truth. Think of a paradigm as a metatheory or an intellectual envelope than covers and contains the current theories. Sometimes new facts cause the envelope to burst and a new one must be constructed. I have considered revisiting Kuhn with yet another twist: the role of memes in the progress of science. If only the day were 48 long and I were thirty years younger! Ba'al Chatzaf Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BaalChatzaf Posted September 23, 2008 Share Posted September 23, 2008 I was reading a little on Thomas Kuhn's structure of scientific revolutions. What is a paradigm shift? Is it a shift in the metaphysical context from which we do science? And could we call a scientific paradigm an objective metaphysics?Early reading, early questions.PaulMay I recommend that you read -Science and Hypothesis-* by Henri Poincare', one of the great mathematicians of the lat 19-th and early 20-th centuries. He put forth the proposition that science is largely based on conventions and the conventions (when consistent with observation) should be chosen for how conveniently they lead to the solution of problems. This is very congruent with Kuhn's idea of paradigms. Ba'al Chatzaf* This as translated from the French. Dover Books has a nice inexpensive edition of this work. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tjohnson Posted September 23, 2008 Share Posted September 23, 2008 Poincare was well respected by Korzybski (who you do not seem to care for) but nonetheless here is is quoted 3 times on the very first page of Science & Sanity;Allow me to express now, once and for all, my deep respect for the work of the experimenter andfor his fight to wring significant facts from an inflexible Nature, who says so distinctly “No” and soindistinctly “Yes” to our theories. (550) HERMANN WEYL The firm determination to submit to experiment is not enough; there are still dangeroushypotheses, first, and above all, those which are tacit and unconscious. Since we make them withoutknowing it, we are powerless to abandon them. (417) H. POINCARÉ The empiricist . . . thinks he believes only what he sees, but he is much better at believing than atseeing. (461) G. SANTAYANA For a Latin, truth can be expressed only by equations, it must obey laws simple, logical, symmetricand fitted to satisfy minds in love with mathematical elegance. The Anglo-Saxon to depict a phenomenon will first be engrossed in making a model, and he willmake it with common materials, such as our crude, unaided senses show us them.... He concludesfrom the body to the atom. Both therefore make hypotheses, and this indeed is necessary, since no scientist has ever been ableto get on without them. The essential thing is never to make them unconsciously. (417) H. POINCARÉ If a distinction is to be made between men and monkeys, it is largely measurable by the quantity ofthe subconscious which a higher order of being makes conscious. That man really lives who bringsthe greatest fraction of his daily experience into the realm of the conscious.* MARTIN H. FISCHER The thought of the painter, the musician, the geometrician, the tradesman, and the philosopher maytake very different forms, still more so the thought of the uncultivated man, which remainsrudimentary and revolves for ever in the same circles. (411) HENRI PIÉRON One need only open the eyes to see that the conquests of industry which have enriched so manypractical men would never have seen the light, if these practical men alone had existed and if theyhad not been preceded by unselfish devotees who died poor, who never thought of utility, and yethad a guide far other than caprice. (417) H. POINCARÉ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brant Gaede Posted September 23, 2008 Share Posted September 23, 2008 From that link ;A defense Kuhn gives against the objection that his account of science from The Structure of Scientific Revolutions results in relativism can be found in an essay by Kuhn called "Objectivity, Value Judgment, and Theory Choice."[4] In this essay, he reiteriates five criteria from the penultimate chapter of SSR that determine (or help determine, more properly) theory choice:1 - Accurate - empirically adequate with experimentation and observation2 - Consistent - internally consistent, but also externally consistent with other theories3 - Broad Scope - a theory's consequencies should extend beyond that which it was initially designed to explain4 - Simple - the simplest explanation, principally similar to Occam's Razor5 - Fruitful - a theory should disclose new phenomena or new relationships among phenomenaInteresting that nowhere on this list does the criteria of "truth" appear. I submit that this is because it is not possible to establish absolute "truth" of a statement, despite many people's desire to do so. I have heard it said on this list that Rand had a passion for finding the truth well, if so, then it was doomed to failure. The closest we can get to the "truth" is outlined above and is employed by science generally speaking, not in philosophy.It's "The passionate search for passionless truth." However, I don't know whom I'm quoting. Likely someone extremely close to Rand, not Rand herself. If she said it I doubt she wrote it. It's much more the style of Barbara Branden than Ayn Rand.This is what a scientist does, after all. If he thought he would be doomed to failure he wouldn't be a scientist, he'd be a semanticist and applied generally we'd still be hunter-gatherers.--Brant Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dragonfly Posted September 23, 2008 Share Posted September 23, 2008 From that link ;Interesting that nowhere on this list does the criteria of "truth" appear. I submit that this is because it is not possible to establish absolute "truth" of a statement, despite many people's desire to do so. I have heard it said on this list that Rand had a passion for finding the truth well, if so, then it was doomed to failure. The closest we can get to the "truth" is outlined above and is employed by science generally speaking, not in philosophy.It's "The passionate search for passionless truth." However, I don't know whom I'm quoting. Likely someone extremely close to Rand, not Rand herself. If she said it I doubt she wrote it. It's much more the style of Barbara Branden than Ayn Rand.This is what a scientist does, after all. If he thought he would be doomed to failure he wouldn't be a scientist, he'd be a semanticist and applied generally we'd still be hunter-gatherers.Not being able to find the "absolute truth" is not the same as being doomed to failure, that's a false dichotomy. Even without absolute truth we can go beyond being hunter-gatherers (which reminds me of Hsieh, who now has become a diet-nut [not to be confused with a nut-diet], finding salvation in the food that our ancestors the hunter-gatherers would have eaten). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brant Gaede Posted September 23, 2008 Share Posted September 23, 2008 From that link ;Interesting that nowhere on this list does the criteria of "truth" appear. I submit that this is because it is not possible to establish absolute "truth" of a statement, despite many people's desire to do so. I have heard it said on this list that Rand had a passion for finding the truth well, if so, then it was doomed to failure. The closest we can get to the "truth" is outlined above and is employed by science generally speaking, not in philosophy.It's "The passionate search for passionless truth." However, I don't know whom I'm quoting. Likely someone extremely close to Rand, not Rand herself. If she said it I doubt she wrote it. It's much more the style of Barbara Branden than Ayn Rand.This is what a scientist does, after all. If he thought he would be doomed to failure he wouldn't be a scientist, he'd be a semanticist and applied generally we'd still be hunter-gatherers.Not being able to find the "absolute truth" is not the same as being doomed to failure, that's a false dichotomy. Even without absolute truth we can go beyond being hunter-gatherers (which reminds me of Hsieh, who now has become a diet-nut [not to be confused with a nut-diet], finding salvation in the food that our ancestors the hunter-gatherers would have eaten)."Passionless truth" and "absolute truth" are not one and the same. The latter is only dogmatism. Of course GS is talking about both and in her heart of hearts I think Rand was too. In the 60s and 70s Objectivist culture "Absolutely!" was a favorite bonding verbal ejaculation. Her diet is interesting. It's akin to the increasingly popular "paleo" diet. I think getting carbs out of one's diet may be a good idea but I'd hardly warm to the idea of not worrying about saturated fats in meat. Our distant ancestors, of course, commonly enjoyed living to 113.--Brant Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guyau Posted September 25, 2008 Share Posted September 25, 2008 (edited) Paul, sooner or later, treat yourself to the real treasures, the first one first:The Structure of Scientific RevolutionsThomas S. Kuhnhttp://www.amazon.com/gp/reader/0226458083..._pt#reader-linkThe Essential Tension Thomas S. Kuhnhttp://www.amazon.com/gp/reader/0226458067..._pt#reader-linkThe Road since Structure Thomas S. Kuhn, edited by James Conant and John Haugelandhttp://www.amazon.com/gp/reader/0226457990..._pt#reader-linkThe Copernican Revolution Thomas S. Kuhnhttp://www.amazon.com/gp/reader/0674171039..._pt#reader-linkBlack-Body Theory and the Quantum Discontinuity, 1894–1912Thomas S. Kuhnhttp://www.amazon.com/gp/reader/0226458008..._pt#reader-linkAlternative Views of Scientific RevolutionsScientific RevolutionsEdited by Ian Hackinghttp://www.amazon.com/gp/reader/019875051X..._pt#reader-linkHacking provides a good brief summary of Kuhn’s Structure in the Introduction.The important chapters are these:II. “Meaning and Scientific Change” by Dudley ShapereIII. “The ‘Corroboration’ of Theories” by Hilary PutnamIV. “The Rationality of Scientific Revolutions” by Karl PopperV. “History of Science and Its Rational Reconstructions” by Imre LakatosVI. “Lakatos’ Philosophy of Science” by Ian HackingVII. “A Problem-Solving Approach to Scientific Progress” by Larry Laudan Edited September 25, 2008 by Stephen Boydstun Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Paul Mawdsley Posted September 26, 2008 Author Share Posted September 26, 2008 Thanks Stephen. Your guidance is always welcome. I tend to read to help push the envelope of my own evolving philosophy. I'm sensing a hunger that is going to have me reading in a lot of new directions over the next few years. Popper and Kuhn are high on the list. The insights I have gained on OL are helping to guide what I will be reading.Paul Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now