Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

Re: Paradigm Shifts

Expand Messages
  • the_spacemouse
    I thought that I cited a critique of his ... My bad-- this post must have escaped my notice; I searched the archives and found it. Sorry!
    Message 1 of 5 , May 1, 2004
    • 0 Attachment
      I thought that I cited a critique of his
      > writing for you.

      My bad-- this post must have escaped my notice; I searched the
      archives and found it. Sorry!
    • lesteralberque
      ... ******Les replies, You have asked my opinion of Thomas Kuhn s writing. The article I cited was Thomas Kuhn s irrationalism by James Franklin, The New
      Message 2 of 5 , May 1, 2004
      • 0 Attachment
        --- In catholicquestions@yahoogroups.com, the_spacemouse
        <no_reply@y...> wrote:
        >
        > I thought that I cited a critique of his
        > > writing for you.
        >
        > My bad-- this post must have escaped my notice; I searched the
        > archives and found it. Sorry!

        ******Les replies,

        You have asked my opinion of Thomas Kuhn's writing. The article I
        cited was "Thomas Kuhn's irrationalism" by James Franklin, The New
        Criterion, on Line. It may be viewed at:
        http://www.newcriterion.com/archive/18/jun00/kuhn.htm

        Kuhn, author of "The Structure of Scientific Revolutions," is perhaps
        best remembered for his buzz words "paradigm shift."

        His basic thesis, as I understand it, is that scientific explanations
        tend to change over time. Therefore, if we study one it may be
        changed by the next generation of scientists. If he replaced the
        word "changed" with the word "improved," perhaps his views would be
        more logically tenable.

        Of course, Kahn's "irrational" (meaning he doesn't rely on reason)
        and unscientific approach is applauded by fundamentalists religious
        circles because it allows them to by pass rational analysis and logic.

        I imagine that Aquinas and Kuhn wouldn't get along. [;DS]
      • the_spacemouse
        ... It s a bit more complicated than that-- however, I should warn that I am vaguely remembering reading a short article or something by him several years ago,
        Message 3 of 5 , May 1, 2004
        • 0 Attachment
          >
          > His basic thesis, as I understand it, is that scientific explanations
          > tend to change over time. Therefore, if we study one it may be
          > changed by the next generation of scientists. If he replaced the
          > word "changed" with the word "improved," perhaps his views would be
          > more logically tenable.

          It's a bit more complicated than that-- however, I should warn that I
          am vaguely remembering reading a short article or something by him
          several years ago, so I may be getting oversimplifying him or
          misrepresenting some of his points. What he says is that scientists
          tend to think "within" the reigning paradigms, and they may reject or
          "interpret away" evidence that doesn't fit within the
          paradigm.Paradigm shifts --in which the dominant "frame" for thinking
          about things is changed-- can and do happen, but then evidence will be
          interpreted in terms of the new paradigm. As a result, the way
          scientific evidence is interpreted is culturally conditioned:
          different cultures have different paradigms, and they will interpret
          any "facts" or evidence within the context of that paradigm. This
          means not just that animists will interpret the madness of a rabid
          bear differently than will those who are aware of the existence of
          viruses, but that Newtonian physicists would interpret data
          differently than physicists post-Einstein.

          I'm not really a Kuhn fan --when I encountered him in a philosophy of
          science class, I was slightly disgusted with him-- but I suspect he's
          right that in practice, evidence may be misinterpreted or dismissed
          because it doesn't fit accepted paradigms. (Thus, if you believe that
          bacteria cannot survive in highly acidic conditions, you may not
          accept that bacteria are involved in the formation of gastric ulcers.)
          More to the point, I think he's right that there's a certain extent to
          which the way that anyone approaches data will be shaped by that
          person's prior beliefs. You don't have to be an irrationalist to
          believe that. You just have to believe that human reason isn't
          perfect-- and Aquinas, who believe in Original sin, would have agreed
          with that. ;-)

          I bring Kuhn up only because I think that he raises a valid point
          about the dangers of assuming scientific objectivity. You constantly
          tell us that you just interpret the "facts." What you don't admit is
          that, like us, you interpret them in light of your own beliefs. If it
          made sense to talk about "personal paradigms" (I'm not sure that it
          does) we would say that you have a different paradigm than we do, and
          thus you interpret things (such as New testament prophecies)
          differently than we do. But you seem unwilling to admit that your
          interpretations are influenced by your previously held beliefs. That
          was my point in bringing in Kuhn.
        Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.