Scientific Paradigms are NOT true: Philosophy Forums

Philosophy Forums » Philosophy of Science » Scientific Paradigms are NOT true » Scientific Paradigms are NOT true

Scientific Paradigms are NOT true
Kuhn is going down! Argument developing against Kuhn.

Page: 1 2 3

Scientific Paradigms are NOT true

Aetixintro
Concepts and descriptions

Usergroup: Sponsors
Joined: Jul 12, 2008

Total Topics: 35
Total Posts: 392

Posted 09/20/09 - 01:28 PM: Subject: Scientific Paradigms are NOT true	#1
The object of this thread is clear. It's to make an argument against Kuhn. Kuhn is going down! My projection is that I'm going to be alone in this, but you are welcome join me or criticise my attempt or my possibilities to do so, essentially pointing out why Kuhn is such a classic. I have a few articles of Kuhn in my "Philosophy of Science - The Central Issues" by M. Curd and J. A. Cover, publ. by W. W. Norton & Company, 1998 (damn, it's an old book) and I've bought Kuhn's The Structure of Scientific Revolutions, 3rd ed. Alright, here we go! Nail #1: It's clear to me that if the Paradigms of Kuhn are supposed to be true, they have to be logically equivalent. I believe Kuhn states that one isn't able to choose rationally any Paradigm, you are more or less drawn into one by all sorts of strange reasons whether they be feelings, social connections or what. You have this Ptolemaic System. Is this supposed to be equivalent to Einstein's Theory of Relativity or Copernicus' Heliocentric Worldview? It's obvious they are not equivalent. It's also obvious the various worldviews hold different cognition based on different assumptions and observations. Let me add the technological development that has made extensions to our eyes, like the Hubble telescope. Nail #2. It's therefore established that these K. Paradigms are "chosen" or chosen relatively closely temporally. In this, one first problem is to come up with something at all. Each of these is also building on assumptions of concepts, models - theories, and underlying, historical work whether this is mathematics, (naive) remarkable discoveries, development in technology such as telescopes, magnifying glass, general thinking of what reality should be, ie. conceptualisation and speculation. Maybe we get 2 or 3 "Paradigms" to choose from. As these Paradigms are considered, elaborate testing is going on, perhaps coming up with something. (more?) Nail #3. Today, what are our options in choosing from paradigms? We have perhaps these 2 or 3 theories in quantum physics. I sense that scientists are well aware they may be wrong! This means competition is open. We can't certainly begin to doubt observations in space and come up with a different astronomical worldview. We have to say that technology nails something for us. Again I point to advances in other fields that are not actually considered by these scientists in this paradigm. (This is where Kuhn is going down!) Conclusion: We have this giant landscape in science (2009) where advances happen all over. Scientists are connected by the internet to exchange agreements, thoughts, and differences of opinion. They are probably expecting new technology and checking for relevant work done elsewhere on Earth and ISS, all-other-wise. There are, I guess, numerous problems in science currently that are being investigated like the dualism of photons and what have you. Then, it's impossible to determine any single paradigm because everything is interconnected and is developed in unison everywhere. It's impossible to make an incision around particular efforts as a consequence. The "community" lives and dies together. Besides, as I see it, today, most disagreements are theoretical and thus not subject to empirical testing. How is Kuhn doing? I think he looks bleak! (more?) Thoughts, anyone? Edited by Aetixintro on 09/20/09 - 08:37 PM
Efficacy of "for since it is at present manifest to me that even bodies are not properly known by the senses nor by the faculty of imagination, but by the understanding alone" - Descartes, Meditation II I'm always wanting more, Anything I haven't got, Everything, I want it all, I just can't stop - The Cure, Want

Banno
Old goat

Usergroup: Sponsors
Joined: Aug 15, 2004
Location: Oz

Total Topics: 111
Total Posts: 6303

Posted 09/20/09 - 01:38 PM:	#2
Where does Kuhn make the claim that paradigms are true?
Davidson: We make maximum sense of the words and thoughts of others when we interpret in a way that optimizes agreement. Russel Morris: There's a meaning there, but the meaning there doesn't really mean a thing... Ned: Such is life

Aetixintro
Concepts and descriptions

Usergroup: Sponsors
Joined: Jul 12, 2008

Total Topics: 35
Total Posts: 392

Posted 09/20/09 - 02:02 PM:	#3
How can you point to the concept of paradigms if there's no content in them? I believe Kuhn is indeed successful in explaining what he means, that the concept is meaningful, but wrong, in my opinion. Yes? Btw, in the case of the Paradigm of Einstein's Relativity, shouldn't one acknowledge both Einstein and Riemann on it? As I've pointed out, it's impossible to make a "jump" in time and come up with our science, let's say, 500 years ago or 2500 years ago. This should be blatant and clear! I thereby come up with a second conclusion, that we are in effect "climbing a mountain, science-wise" or "scaling that Babel's tower, science-wise". I think I can say that we know that back in time, people have been more wrong or less objective than we are today, but this may have been necessary! It can't be said definitely, but the scope of the development through history lies there. A new theory of evolution, science-wise? Edited by Aetixintro on 09/20/09 - 02:27 PM
Efficacy of "for since it is at present manifest to me that even bodies are not properly known by the senses nor by the faculty of imagination, but by the understanding alone" - Descartes, Meditation II I'm always wanting more, Anything I haven't got, Everything, I want it all, I just can't stop - The Cure, Want

Timothy
Undead Mariachi

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Dec 18, 2004
Location: 04°34'N 74°00'W

Total Topics: 83
Total Posts: 2078

Posted 09/20/09 - 06:42 PM:	#4
Aetixintro wrote: Nail #1: It's clear to me that if the Paradigms of Kuhn are supposed to be true, they have to be logically equivalent. Isn't one of Kuhn's main points to show that, precisely, the paradigms historically held cannot be taken to be true, in the standard meaning of "truth"? I doubt he would call any paradigm as true... maybe he would only call them "true" in the sense that, during the normal science period, scientists weren't trying to disprove the paradigm, so they acted as if the paradigm was an established truth. The interesting part comes when there's a period of crisis... and the tacit belief among scientists comes down. Since this claim about the truth of the paradigms is not implied by Kuhn, I guess he could therefore avoid the consequence of having to accept different paradigms as logically equivalent. Aetixintro wrote: It's obvious they are not equivalent. It's also obvious the various worldviews hold different cognition based on different assumptions and observations. There's no logical equivalence among paradigms being required, I think. I don't think any equivalence is being called for. Again, Kuhn's point is to show that there's an in-equivalency between an old and a new paradigm: one of them is better than the other. the thing is that "better" here does not necessarily mean "truer" or "factual". The whole process of changing previously held assumptions and having different cognitions is what causes paradigms to be incommensurable, in the epistemic, not pragmatic, sense. Logical equivalence is precisely what Kuhn is showing to not be the case, one could say! Nail #2 seems to be a very kuhnean picture, so I don't see how it can count as a rebuttal. Aetixintro wrote: Nail #3. Today, what are our options in choosing from paradigms? We have perhaps these 2 or 3 theories in quantum physics. I sense that scientists are well aware they may be wrong! This means competition is open. We can't certainly begin to doubt observations in space and come up with a different astronomical worldview. We have to say that technology nails something for us. Again I point to advances in other fields that are not actually considered by these scientists in this paradigm. Two things could be said. Either we're in a "crisis" period, and hence Kuhn would be shown to be correct rather than mistaken, or scientists really do have a tacit paradigm being sort of established (say, string theory gets most of the funding, teaching and research). I don't know enough about contemporary work in many sciences, specially physics, but it's safe to say that there are certain sciences were a paradigm couldn't be more established (viz. Evolution in Biology). Aetixintro wrote: (This is where Kuhn is going down!) Conclusion: We have this giant landscape in science (2009) where advances happen all over. Scientists are connected by the internet to exchange agreements, thoughts, and differences of opinion. They are probably expecting new technology and checking for relevant work done elsewhere on Earth and ISS, all-other-wise. There are, I guess, numerous problems in science currently that are being investigated like the dualism of photons and what have you. Then, it's impossible to determine any single paradigm because everything is interconnected and is developed in unison everywhere. Again, this could be rendered compatible with Kuhn by saying that currently we're in a major period of crisis, were no paradigm has been established over other possible candidates. Also, the seemingly impossibility of determining a single paradigm is not a strong case against Kuhn, for he acknowledges that his talk about paradigms is intentionally simplistic insofar as it's a daunting enterprise to record every step in the formation of scientific theories, and even more daunting the connections between different theories in different subfields of the same discipline, or even among disciplines. Banno wrote: How can you point to the concept of paradigms if there's no content in them? As I take you are responding here to Banno, you seem to imply that in order for the concept of paradigm to be useful, the scientific theories worthy of being called paradigms have then to be true. But the whole point, as I said above, was to show precisely that truth is not a criteria by which to choose among different competing theories. Since this seem to be your major premise, the whole attack on Kuhn, IMO, fails.
"Neither Aristotelian nor Russellian rules give the exact logic of any expression of ordinary language; for ordinary language has no exact logic." P.F. Strawson

Aetixintro
Concepts and descriptions

Usergroup: Sponsors
Joined: Jul 12, 2008

Total Topics: 35
Total Posts: 392

Posted 09/20/09 - 08:21 PM:	#5
Timothy, When I use the word "truth" in connection with paradigm, I mean of course that it's the concept of paradigm that's supposed to be true. I must be crazy if I say that the Ptolemaic worldview is supposed to represent truth, I mean of course, the paradigm. One of my arguments here is that technology may be the whole engine of cognition and scientific progress. Does it matter to consider paradigms if the Ptolemaians have not had the chance, i.e. aids to see with, the corroboration of observations, to make the cognition that are required to become Copernicans (I may have left out some mathematics here and more). So you seem to have skipped the argument of the technological requirements of scientific progress. If it's technology that makes scientific happen, does it make sense to call it a paradigm? It's obvious that technology represents the inter-subjective. Can you truly say that our future scientific progress doesn't have a broad inter-subjective, "objective", character in that everyone will recognise the right theory to believe in because it's technology that will decide those beliefs? So all in all, I think it's better to see science as a whole doing gradual advances in the light of the development of "assumptions of concepts, models - theories, and underlying, historical work whether this is mathematics, (naive) remarkable discoveries, development in technology such as telescopes, magnifying glass, general thinking of what reality should be, i.e. conceptualisation and speculation". All science is broadly based therefore only the scientist-spearheads make the mistakes while cognition of the best alternative is inevitable. If this isn't in disagreement with Kuhn then nothing is! I also note that scientists are well aware they may be wrong! Isn't this counter to Kuhn who is asserting that scientists are blind when they are in a paradigm and that they die with it. Because the scientists die (of old age and whatever) who are driving the paradigms, new paradigms emerge. Is this the case today? I think not. I fail to see that Kuhn is happy with underlying, historical work in explaining his paradigms. I try to disagree with Kuhn in every way, yet you think what I write is very Kuhnian. Very funny! I can't say nail #3 is addressed at all. You begin to write about the different phases in Kuhn's system while I try to establish cognition as a function of history, especially in the sense of technology with writing "we have to say that technology nails something for us." This aspect is wholly uncommented! I believe it's clear that technology isn't subject to paradigms. Yes? In your last quote, you mix me up with Banno. When I answer Banno I only think of the concept of "paradigms", nothing more. Is this hard to understand? I will study Kuhn more and bring quotes and better aimed attacks addressing these quotes. I'll try to shed the Kuhnian about my writing as clearly as possible. Cheers! Edited by Incision on 09/21/09 - 02:36 PM. Reason: capitalization
Efficacy of "for since it is at present manifest to me that even bodies are not properly known by the senses nor by the faculty of imagination, but by the understanding alone" - Descartes, Meditation II I'm always wanting more, Anything I haven't got, Everything, I want it all, I just can't stop - The Cure, Want

Banno
Old goat

Usergroup: Sponsors
Joined: Aug 15, 2004
Location: Oz

Total Topics: 111
Total Posts: 6303

Posted 09/21/09 - 12:46 AM:	#6
Aetixintro wrote: I will study Kuhn more and bring quotes and better aimed attacks addressing these quotes. I'll try to shed the Kuhnian about my writing as clearly as possible. Cheers! Not sure this is such a good idea. It will be much easier to "send him down" if you begin by misunderstanding him.
Davidson: We make maximum sense of the words and thoughts of others when we interpret in a way that optimizes agreement. Russel Morris: There's a meaning there, but the meaning there doesn't really mean a thing... Ned: Such is life

Aetixintro
Concepts and descriptions

Usergroup: Sponsors
Joined: Jul 12, 2008

Total Topics: 35
Total Posts: 392

Posted 09/21/09 - 05:51 AM:	#7
A thought strikes that is already implicit, but I say it. Kuhn can really be accused of crudeness in creating the paradigms because he's ignoring those processes leading to the paradigms in sufficiently thorough terms. Call my assumption contextualism or what you want, but it's derived from "assumptions of concepts, models - theories, and underlying, historical work whether this is mathematics, (naive) remarkable discoveries, development in technology such as telescopes, magnifying glass, general thinking of what reality should be, ie. conceptualisation and speculation". As Kuhn fails to deal with these processes properly, his argument of paradigms is an illusion. I will follow up on what I write, but this thought has been pressing.
Efficacy of "for since it is at present manifest to me that even bodies are not properly known by the senses nor by the faculty of imagination, but by the understanding alone" - Descartes, Meditation II I'm always wanting more, Anything I haven't got, Everything, I want it all, I just can't stop - The Cure, Want

makerowner
Assistant Professor

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Apr 15, 2008

Total Topics: 11
Total Posts: 326

Posted 09/21/09 - 06:12 AM:	#8
You're not making very clear what you mean by "scientific paradigms are not true". Do you mean that Kuhn's theory of paradigms (that the history of science is a succession of partially incommensurable paradigms rather than a continuous progress towards the correct explanation) is false? Or that a paradigm cannot be said to be true (or false) because it's the basis on which truth and falsity are determined in science? Or that specific paradigms, like the Ptolemaic model in astronomy, are false? It seems like you mean the latter; if so, Kuhn certainly wouldn't have disagreed. Kuhn was definitely not a skeptic about science, or a proponent of "all scientific theories are equal" or anything of the kind. The point of the 'paradigm' concept is just that the old-fashioned textbook picture of the stupid, backward Scholastics who couldn't see the obvious superiority of Gallileo's mechanics is an oversimplification; Scholastic physics and Gallilean physics were not doing the same thing, and were not directly comparable. If some people did "convert" to Gallilean physics, it's not because it explained a wider range of phenomena (it didn't at that time; far less in fact) or because it was more plausible (it was actually extremely implausible, which is why Gallileo had to write his dialogue to defend it); it was, according to Kuhn, because of the crisis in calendrical calculations. As for your "nails": 1) as Timothy pointed out, Kuhn was saying precisely he opposite of what you accuse him of here, so I don't know where you got this idea from. Another point of confusion is that Kuhn was definitely not proposing that all paradigms from the entire history of science are in play at all times; in "normal science" there is only one live paradigm, and in a crisis, the established paradigm will be threatened by a few new ones, but Kuhn is definitely not saying that the choice between our current model of the universe and Ptolemy's is a live one today. For 2), I don't understand what exactly your point is. Is it that the choice of paradigms is controlled by experimentation rather than being based on "all sorts of strange reasons whether they be feelings, social connections or what"? If so, Kuhn would at least partially agree with you. A new paradigm can be (and often is) preferred because of experimental successes, but Kuhn's point is just that which experiments are decisive for choosing between theories is not an entirely "rational" choice. In any working paradigm, there will always be "odd" experimental results that don't quite fit the theory's predictions, and part of the work of normal science is to refine the experiments in the hope of discovering why. It's only in a crisis situation that experiments take on the burden of deciding between "paradigms", and those crises are not entirely "rational", which is where your "strange reasons" come in. 3) Again, I'm not sure what it is that you think this proves, or rather what in Kuhn you think it disproves. Kuhn nowhere suggests that we "doubt observations" or that scientists think they can't be wrong. My thoughts are that Kuhn has been central to the philosophy of science in the US for the past 30 years or so, and that reading, or rather misreading a couple of his articles and making an indignant reaction to them is not the way to "take him down". You should focus first on understanding what he actually says and thinking about his position as a whole, rather than rejecting single phrases like "paradigms are true" (which, as I explained, don't even come from Kuhn). If, once you've understood his work, you want to "attack" it, you should quote him in your attacks, because I can't see that any of what you said is a point against Kuhn.
For philosophy, Socrates, if pursued in moderation and at the proper age, is an elegant accomplishment, but too much philosophy is the ruin of human life. Even if a man has good parts, still, if he carries philosophy into later life, he is necessarily ignorant of all those things which a gentleman and a person of honour ought to know.

Aetixintro
Concepts and descriptions

Usergroup: Sponsors
Joined: Jul 12, 2008

Total Topics: 35
Total Posts: 392

Posted 09/21/09 - 07:02 AM:	#9
Thanks for the questions, makerowner, so that we can make it clear! makerowner wrote: Do you mean that Kuhn's theory of paradigms (that the history of science is a succession of partially incommensurable paradigms rather than a continuous progress towards the correct explanation) is false? Yes! That is exactly what I mean. At least, Kuhn is faulty. makerowner wrote: Or that a paradigm cannot be said to be true (or false) because it's the basis on which truth and falsity are determined in science? The concept of paradigm is wrong, ie. first question. The science that makes up these "paradigms" is historically false, too, but at that stage in history, that science is still very reasonable. The current science is, of course, the best we have. You know there may be troubles if I use the word "objective". makerowner wrote: Or that specific paradigms, like the Ptolemaic model in astronomy, are false? As I've already answered in this post: The science that makes up these "paradigms" is historically false, too, but at that stage in history, that science is still very reasonable. makerowner wrote: 1) as Timothy pointed out, Kuhn was saying precisely he opposite of what you accuse him of here, so I don't know where you got this idea from. Another point of confusion is that Kuhn was definitely not proposing that all paradigms from the entire history of science are in play at all times; in "normal science" there is only one live paradigm, and in a crisis, the established paradigm will be threatened by a few new ones, but Kuhn is definitely not saying that the choice between our current model of the universe and Ptolemy's is a live one today. I've been uncertain to what Kuhn's position on this is so I've just wanted to point it out. I think it starts the chain of argument nicely and Nail #1 isn't critical. Point taken! makerowner wrote: 2), I don't understand what exactly your point is. Is it that the choice of paradigms is controlled by experimentation rather than being based on "all sorts of strange reasons whether they be feelings, social connections or what"? If so, Kuhn would at least partially agree with you. A new paradigm can be (and often is) preferred because of experimental successes, but Kuhn's point is just that which experiments are decisive for choosing between theories is not an entirely "rational" choice. In any working paradigm, there will always be "odd" experimental results that don't quite fit the theory's predictions, and part of the work of normal science is to refine the experiments in the hope of discovering why. It's only in a crisis situation that experiments take on the burden of deciding between "paradigms", and those crises are not entirely "rational", which is where your "strange reasons" come in. I say there's definitely cognition in science when the theories are being tested (I don't want to go through the whole HDM and otherwise here) and in the meanwhile that advances in other fields, especially the development of technology, come into play and seal the deal cognitively. You admit that Kuhn makes a point of "strange reasons", but I say that in my argument there are no such "strange reasons" (I don't account for crazy scientists). makerowner wrote: 3) Again, I'm not sure what it is that you think this proves, or rather what in Kuhn you think it disproves. Kuhn nowhere suggests that we "doubt observations" or that scientists think they can't be wrong. I believe Kuhn makes the point that scientists in a paradigm are blind, have no cognition, of advances that competing scientists make. Again, I take it further with technology, it's the technology which is definitely cognitive, that decide the cases where scientific progress can be made. (Maybe this is stated poorly, I'll think about it.) makerowner wrote: You should focus first on understanding what he actually says and thinking about his position as a whole, rather than rejecting single phrases like "paradigms are true" (which, as I explained, don't even come from Kuhn). If, once you've understood his work, you want to "attack" it, you should quote him in your attacks, because I can't see that any of what you said is a point against Kuhn. When I write "paradigms are not true" I intend to say that Kuhn's invention or use of the concept of paradigm in his theory or description of the structure of scientific revolutions is wrong or mistaken or faulty or an illusion. There's no doubt that Kuhn is serious with his book, but this is obvious! Otherwise, I'll do exactly what you have written! Thanks!
Efficacy of "for since it is at present manifest to me that even bodies are not properly known by the senses nor by the faculty of imagination, but by the understanding alone" - Descartes, Meditation II I'm always wanting more, Anything I haven't got, Everything, I want it all, I just can't stop - The Cure, Want

Aetixintro
Concepts and descriptions

Usergroup: Sponsors
Joined: Jul 12, 2008

Total Topics: 35
Total Posts: 392

Posted 09/21/09 - 07:31 AM:	#10
Note: Some people may point out that some paradigms happen as a function of "accidents" or unforeseen events. I'm thinking of penicillin or whatever, but I want people to have in mind that these investigative people have been through education and what (Einstein is a Ph.d. when he comes up with the relativity theory, not that it is an accident) and are usually in the process of rigorous research. These people, like Sir Alexander Fleming, are extremely attuned to pick up remarkable events. I don't think any such possible situation is weakening my attack on "paradigms", Kuhn's book. This is so because they are building on that foundation of assumptions that is historically set. I don't deny there are excellent scientists, but they are a part of history, "standing on the shoulders of giants". See Nail #2 in post #1 in this thread!
Efficacy of "for since it is at present manifest to me that even bodies are not properly known by the senses nor by the faculty of imagination, but by the understanding alone" - Descartes, Meditation II I'm always wanting more, Anything I haven't got, Everything, I want it all, I just can't stop - The Cure, Want

Page: 1 2 3

Sorry, you don't have permission to post. Log in, or register if you haven't yet.