torek@umich.UUCP (Paul V. Torek ) (09/25/85)
In article <27500124@ISM780B.UUCP> jim@ISM780B.UUCP writes: >... Scientific discovery and advance is nearly >monotonic; no such claim can be made for any religion. I'm the first to defend the rationality of science, but this claim is overly grandiose. Science doesn't advance monotonically; T.S. Kuhn showed otherwise. --Paul V Torek torek@umich
jim@ISM780B.UUCP (09/29/85)
>In article <27500124@ISM780B.UUCP> jim@ISM780B.UUCP writes: >>... Scientific discovery and advance is nearly >>monotonic; no such claim can be made for any religion. > >I'm the first to defend the rationality of science, but this claim is >overly grandiose. Science doesn't advance monotonically; T.S. Kuhn >showed otherwise. I said "nearly". Like Rich, I am not impressed by this form of argument. Since I am not familiar with Kuhn, please summarize Kuhn's arguments, so we can all judge them for ourselves. -- Jim Balter (ima!jim)
ellis@spar.UUCP (Michael Ellis) (10/01/85)
>>>... Scientific discovery and advance is nearly >>>monotonic; no such claim can be made for any religion. >> >>I'm the first to defend the rationality of science, but this claim is >>overly grandiose. Science doesn't advance monotonically; T.S. Kuhn >>showed otherwise. > >I said "nearly". Like Rich, I am not impressed by this form of argument. >Since I am not familiar with Kuhn, please summarize Kuhn's arguments, >so we can all judge them for ourselves. - Jim Balter (ima!jim) Cogniscenti are encouraged to correct my miscomprehensions, but I believe Kuhn's thesis (described in his "Structure of Scientific Revolutions", 1962) is that scientific progress follows the pattern: ..old science - crisis - revolution - new science - normal science.. ..and that the success of revolutions is determined by the consensus of the scientific community (which usually has little more cohesivity than the statistical composition of the diverse `vested interests' of its practitioners) much like advances in politics and even religion, for that matter. Furthermore, the truth of old science is usually wiped out, rather than monotonically improved. Some examples (not necessarily Kuhn's): -Aristotelian science was not improved by Newtonian mechanics, it was totally discarded. Likewise, science's longtime assertion that purports to describe objectively existing real entities would seem to be largely denied by the Copenhagen dogma which insists that only the measurements of the experimental apparatus are objective. -The painstaking efforts of many 19th century efforts to determine the precise molecular weight of many chemicals was totally invalidated by the discovery of isotopes. A huge body of computational techniques (using symbolic reduction, logarithmic tables, abaci/slide rules) has been rendered pointless by digital computers. -On many issues, science flip-flops wildly, rather than gradually approaches `truth', such as the wave/particle nature of light; or the similarity of discontinuous motion within many QM schemes to that postulated by certain ancient greeks (Zeno). Please note that these are not negative criticisms of science itself (which is to be judged by its value to humanity); rather, they are criticisms of the notion that science advances monotonically. In fact, Kuhn naively assumes the superiority of science. Kuhn's arguments are widely respected, although they have been subjected to healthy and occasionally cynical criticism. Lakatos argued that Kuhn misses the importance of competition between research programs; Feyerabend, that Kuhn's arguments would lead "to the conclusion that organized crime and Oxford philosophy qualify as science", as AF Chalmers put it. ====================================================================== On the related issue of the lack of advance in religion -- that is not in agreement with my experience. Early religions had many conflicting gods, assertions about miraculous physical powers, and attacks on competing faiths. Recent developments, like the ecumenical movement, a growing sentiment that the deity of all religions is identical, the growing interfaith acceptance of other mystical traditions, and the disentanglement from conflict with science, are clearly signs of great advance in religion. Unfortunately, much of the recent Christian fundamentalism is a departure from this tendency. ======================================================================== "What's so great about science?" - Paul Feyerabend -michael
torek@umich.UUCP (Paul V. Torek ) (10/02/85)
In article <27500136@ISM780B.UUCP> jim@ISM780B.UUCP writes: >>I'm the first to defend the rationality of science, but this claim is >>overly grandiose. Science doesn't advance monotonically; T.S. Kuhn >>showed otherwise. >I said "nearly". Like Rich, I am not impressed by this form of argument. >Since I am not familiar with Kuhn, please summarize Kuhn's arguments, >so we can all judge them for ourselves. Read it yourself -- *The Structure of Scientific Revolutions*. The basic point is that theories get discarded and a branch of science practically starts from scratch under a new "paradigm". Kuhn admits there is progress but denies the idea that science is built up continuously by the addition of new facts. Rather, in "scientific revolutions", whole sets of presumed facts are discovered to be falsehoods. But don't take my word for it. Read it yourself. more, MORE, *MORE* Mr. Nice Guy from --Paul V. Torek, torek@umich
kurtzman@uscvax.UUCP (Stephen Kurtzman) (10/05/85)
In article <256@umich.UUCP> torek@eecs.UUCP (Paul V. Torek ) writes: >In article <27500136@ISM780B.UUCP> jim@ISM780B.UUCP writes: >>>I'm the first to defend the rationality of science, but this claim is >>>overly grandiose. Science doesn't advance monotonically; T.S. Kuhn >>>showed otherwise. > >>I said "nearly". Like Rich, I am not impressed by this form of argument. >>Since I am not familiar with Kuhn, please summarize Kuhn's arguments, >>so we can all judge them for ourselves. > >Read it yourself -- *The Structure of Scientific Revolutions*. The basic >point is that theories get discarded and a branch of science practically >starts from scratch under a new "paradigm". Kuhn admits there is progress >but denies the idea that science is built up continuously by the addition >of new facts. Rather, in "scientific revolutions", whole sets of presumed >facts are discovered to be falsehoods. > >But don't take my word for it. Read it yourself. > >--Paul V. Torek, torek@umich Kuhn did show anything in his exposition. He made important observations backed up by historical anecdotes. These observations are not law and there are problems with his theories. For instance, how do you explain the fact that at any given time there are really many paradigms in operation for a branch of science? Look at computer science - what is its paradigm. Clearly CS as a science is operating under many different paradigms. Newton's revolutionary way of looking at physics is often sited as a scientific revolution. In the changes to physics since Newton, Newton's work has been incorporated, not thrown out. Newtonian physics is still taught to high school students and undergraduates. This doesn't seem to fit in with Kuhn's notion of scientific revolution. Don't misinterpret what I am saying. I am not saying the Kuhn is all wet. I am merely saying that Kuhn didn't prove anything. He only pointed out a different facet of the way science seems to work from time to time. I suppose if this were 20 or 30 years ago people would be saying "You should read Popper, he has shown that ....". One important thing to remember about science is that it is a human art form. If this were not the case concepts such as elegance and beauty would never enter into scientific discussions. They often do. If science were some mono- lithic God given system there would be no discussion of scientific revolutions. But, at the same time, science does advance by building on the work of previous generations. Mathematics is a good example. Even though we have come a long way since Euclid, his methods are still used today. Clearly, science advances by tearing down when appropriate and building up when appropriate. Another important thing to remember about science is that the scientific method yields results where dogma cannot. So that from a purely pragmatic standpoint one can say that the way science has worked up until now may not be perfect but it is the best method we have so far for discovering useful things.
ellis@spar.UUCP (Michael Ellis) (10/08/85)
>>Read it yourself -- *The Structure of Scientific Revolutions*. The basic >>point is that theories get discarded and a branch of science practically >>starts from scratch under a new "paradigm". Kuhn admits there is progress >>but denies the idea that science is built up continuously by the addition >>of new facts. Rather, in "scientific revolutions", whole sets of presumed >>facts are discovered to be falsehoods. >> >>But don't take my word for it. Read it yourself. [Paul] > >..Newton's >revolutionary way of looking at physics is often sited as a scientific >revolution. In the changes to physics since Newton, Newton's work has been >incorporated, not thrown out. Newtonian physics is still taught to high >school students and undergraduates. This doesn't seem to fit in with Kuhn's >notion of scientific revolution. But Einsteinian advances TOTALLY DISCARDED many Newtonian concepts that possessed genuine explicative value (ie- absolute time & simultaneity, luminiferous ether, and so on). Similarly, QM has discarded causal determinism and the absolute existence of physical attributes not measured. These rather indicate that the deletion of obsolete facts is as important as the continuous addition of new ones. Please note that these are not negative criticisms of science, either.. >.. If science were some monolithic God given system there would be no > discussion of scientific revolutions. How, then, do you account for the advances in religion over the past 100 years? Most enlightened Christian churches now proclaim the validity of many non-Christian faiths. There have been parallel efforts in Hunduism (Gandhi), Islam (Sufists like Hazrat Inayat Khan), Catholicism (Merton), Buddhism (Suzuki) to unify the best of the world's religious traditions. Those who refuse to see this trend have focused on the worst failings of religion. >.. But, at the same time, science does advance by building on >the work of previous generations. Mathematics is a good example. Even though >we have come a long way since Euclid, his methods are still used today. >Clearly, science advances by tearing down when appropriate and building up >when appropriate. But math, as opposed to science, never `tears down' its long-standing truths -- it only adds to them. Euclidean geometry was never discarded as obsolete -- it is currently a totally valid subset of Riemannian geometry. Math is not dependent on any empirical knowledge for its validation as is thus eternally true. >Another important thing to remember about science is that the scientific >method yields results where dogma cannot. So that from a purely pragmatic >standpoint one can say that the way science has worked up until now may not >be perfect but it is the best method we have so far for discovering useful >things. But science IS based on dogma -- namely, the (reasonable) assertion that its knowledge be based on empirical observation. There's nothing wrong with this fact, except when overly dogmatic scientists assert that noncontradictory knowledge gained by other sources MUST be false. Again, it is to science's credit that it does not allow statements verified only by, say, mystical revelation into its body of knowledge. It is also to science's credit that it can help religions update their creeds by noting contradictory assertions in religious texts. Where advocates of science overstep their bounds is when they attack the noncontradictory notions of religion. Note that most extra-logical systems which are open to new knowledge do, in fact evolve, regardless of dogmatic underpinning. Judaism, Christianity, Buddhism, or even astrology are hardly the same today as they were 1000 or even 100 years ago. -michael