by Thomas S. Kuhn
Chapter 5 - The Priority of Paradigms
In total there are 3 users online :: 0 registered, 0 hidden and 3 guests (based on users active over the past 60 minutes)
Most users ever online was 789 on Tue Mar 19, 2024 5:08 am
Excellent question.Chris OConnor wrote:Ant, first define "scientific truth.
This is a very good question. My view is that truth is objective, and there are enormous quantities of truth discovered through normal science. All facts are true.ant wrote:Would you say that scientific "truth" is achieved by rebels that work outside the current paradigm?
Robert, will you join in this discussion? We always have fun conversations.This is a very good question. My view is that truth is objective, and there are enormous quantities of truth discovered through normal science. All facts are true.
I think so too. Will it ever be possible to translate values into some format that can be encoded, discussed, and compared in an empirical manner? I think much of our language is tainted with subjectivity and hazy, generalized abstraction. Values suffer from this problem. We can speak of the same thing through the lens of game theory, but a lot of work must be done. There must still be an axiomatic foundation, such as the sanctity of human life. Since that is the modus operandi of our evolution, the crossover from subjective, value based dialogue to empirical, game theory based dialogue would mesh well.The current required paradigm shift could well be more about values than about facts.
i think there's a lot that needs to be defined in this question.Ant:
Would you say that scientific "truth" is achieved by rebels that work outside the current paradigm?
That means that if your hypothesis is off, then it's off. Experiment proves it. When you see that your hypothesis doesn't match up to experimental data, its the data which disproves the hypothesis, and not the other way around. In that way it is always those who challenge the theory who advance science, because that's how you expand your knowledge of the world beyond what we already know.Richard Reynman:
“It doesn't matter how beautiful your theory is, it doesn't matter how smart you are. If it doesn't agree with experiment, it's wrong”
Except it's not that simple, is it? That's part of Kuhn's argument, I think (knowing his basic ideas only second-hand).johnson1010 wrote:That means that if your hypothesis is off, then it's off. Experiment proves it. When you see that your hypothesis doesn't match up to experimental data, its the data which disproves the hypothesis, and not the other way around. In that way it is always those who challenge the theory who advance science, because that's how you expand your knowledge of the world beyond what we already know.Richard Reynman:
“It doesn't matter how beautiful your theory is, it doesn't matter how smart you are. If it doesn't agree with experiment, it's wrong”
Of course you might say Feynman never had such a "crucial experiment" in mind, but I think the point is that falsification is not as clear-cut as many think.the claim that theories or hypotheses can only be subjected to empirical testing in groups or collections, never in isolation...
Duhem argues, that there cannot be any such thing as a “crucial experiment”: a single experiment whose outcome is predicted differently by two competing theories and which therefore serves to definitively confirm one and refute the other.
http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/scien ... rmination/
But, I have to admit, I am rooting for the FTL neutrino. If he survives the investigation then it will be okay that the bullet fired on the speed-of-light train gets to the other side of the car no matter where the observer is.johnson1010 wrote:It's true.
A good example, i think, is our new friend the FTL neutrino. That was a shocking bit of news. But the one instance is not enough for us to go overboard on the new ultimate cosmic speed limit.
We need confirmation, and vetting, and peer review experimentation.