Forums IMPORTANT: PLEASE READ PhotoReading, Memory Optimizer Change in Science

quote:

---

Some comments on science:
Well, of course science doesn't always throw away anything it had learned/discovered before if a new theory arises. And very often the new is based on the old.

BUT this is not like building a house or a complex software, always adding a new layer which. It is more like exploring a complex landscape: the facts (trees, statues, rivers) are always the same, only the perspecive changes.
A new theory has (also) to explain old facts. Sometimes, there are more than one theory to explain the observed facts (think of Darwin and Lamarck, for example). In this case, new facts have to be sought. In my example, the way genetics work have been a fact to support Darwins theory.

And, ground level science: A theory can never be proven, it can only be falsified.
If a theory can't be falsified for some time, people/scientists get more confidence in this theory. But one, only one fact/experiment that can be explained by the corresponding theory, and the theory is falsified. It then has to be modified (think of the very complex arrangement of spheres to adjust the Aristotelan view of the cosmos to the observations of the movements of stars and planets) or replaced (Kepler/Galilei).
At least, this is how it is supposed to work. But people being people (and scientist even more so), change isn't always easyly greeted or accepted.

Jens

---

Jens:

So you are saying that you believe (as do some others here) that the history of science is essentially linear, and that each subsequent generation of scientists builds on the work of preceeding generations, making subtle modifications and refinements?

I just want to be sure I understand your statement, ". . .science doesn't always throw away anything it had learned/discovered before if a new theory arises. And very often the new is based on the old."

Please elaborate.

--George

Essentially linear? Hm, no not really.
I think the pattern is similar to that of evolution: Long periods of subtle adjustment and refinement, short periods of radical change, followed by subtle and refinement of this changed state.
What remains are the building bricks of science, the observations. These observations have to be explained by the new.

The view of our solar system is a good example of this:
First, there's our Earth in the middle of it all, surrounded by perfect spheres on which Moon, Sun, etc. circle around it. Than further obervations are made: Some of the celestial bodies don't move in the way it is suggested by the spheres. So, more spheres are added which circle inside the old spheres. - Adjustment and refinement.

Along come Kepler and Galileo, basically saying: Nice theory, explains the facts (more or less) but far to complicated. Let's put the sun in the middle and all the other planets in orbits around the sun and voilá, same (or even better) level of explanation, but far less complicated. - Radical change

After that, the circular orbits become oval, gravity is put into the picture. - Adjustment and refinement.

[BTW, even if a new theory (eg. Eintein)comes along which is more accurate than the old (in this case Newton), the old theory can still be used as far as its model is pragmatic for the cirumstances. Newton is alright and even accurate as long as you don't apply it to things which move at some respectable fraction of lightspeed.]

Same goes not only for science but for technology, society, ecosystems, etc.: Long periods of bordedom followed by short periods of excitement.
As far as I know, there's even a science discipline out there for this kind of behavior, called "Sciences of Complexity" or "Theory of adaptive complex systems". One main player is the Sana Fe Institute. Quite interesting stuff, but so far I haven't really looked deep into this (or any other form of systems theory). The only book I really read is "Complexity: The Emerging Science at the Egde of Order and Chaos". It's the history of this young science.

With this, I hope, I have made myself a bit clearer. I'm really looking forward to any comments on this "History of Sciences".

Be well,

Jens

Jens:

In his book, "The Structure of Scientific Revolutions," Thomas S. Kuhn takes on the nature of scientific progress. Rather than a linear progression, Kuhn sees a progression of paradigms, anomolies within those paradigms, and then crises created by the anomolies. The result of this progression is the formation of a new paradigm.

Ironically, sees the linear illusion as a result of scientists and scientific historians to view prior work in the context of the current paradigm. Thus, textbooks and research papers tend to selectively imbue the work of a former scientific "superstar" with attitudes and insights that really didn't exist for that scientist. This is not to take away from the accomplishments of the previous scientists--it's just the nature of things. As a fish could be said to be unaware of the waters around it, the scientist always works within a prevailing paradigm--even if, as with Einstein, the new paradigm has yet to be accepted.

Kuhn states: "Scientists are not, of course, the only group that tends to see its discipline's past developing linearly toward its present vantage. The temptation to write history backward is both omnipresent and perennial. But scientists are more affected by the temptation to rewrite history, partly because the results of scientific research show no obvious dependence upon the historical context of the inquiry, and partly because, except during crisis and revolution, the scientist's contemporary position seems so secure. . .The result is a persistent tendency to make the history of science look linear or cumulative, a tendency that even affects scientists looking back at their own research." (pp 138-139, 3rd edition)

The scientist--within the secure paradigm of his/her own context--formulates and tests hypotheses, designs experiments, develops insights, and--certainly--builds on the work of the past. But to take the scientist out of that context and see the work as some obvious result of generations of scientific research is quite often wrong. The anomolies in the prevailing paradigm plant the seeds for the revolution that instantiates a new paradigm. And--this is the edgy part of Kuhn's work--the truth of a particular scientist's theory or discovery can only be viewed properly in the context of that scientist's paradigm. In other words, scientific truth is dependent on the prevailing paradigm and not the other way around!

Kuhn continues: "Since new paradigms are born from old ones, they ordinarily incorporate much of the vocabulary and apparatus, both conceptual and manipulative, that the traditional paradigm employed. But they seldom employ these borrowed elements in quite the traditional way. Within the new paradigm, old terms, concepts, and experiments fall into new relationships one with the other. . .To make the transition to Einstein's universe, the whole conceptual web whose strands are space, time, matter, force, and so on, had to be shifted and laid down again on nature whole. . .Communication across the revolutionary divide is inevitably partial." (p 149)

With regard to the heliocentric revolution in science, Kuhn states: "Consider. . .the men who called Copernicus mad because he proclaimed that the earth moved. They were not either just wrong or quite wrong. Part of what they meant by 'earth' was fixed position. Their earth, at least, could not be moved. Correspondingly, Copernicus' innovation was not simply to move the earth. Rather, it was a whole new way of regarding the problems of physics and astronomy, one that necessarily changed the meaning of both 'earth' and 'motion.'" (pp. 149-150)

Of course, I've only photoread (and superread) the book, so I may be missing his point.

--George

[This message has been edited by GeorgeA (edited March 22, 2001).]

George,

the paradigm shift Kuhn describes is what I mean by radical change: New observations cummulating to a point where the whole structure tumbles over, giving birth to something completely new. But I think between this radical changes there's a lot of finetuning going on.
And, of course, can a radical new theory not be understood from the old point of view. That's why it's radical new in the first place.

As for tendig to view the history of sciences as linear: Same problem with evolution. Looking back, there seems to be a direct line of progression from the first amoebas right to us humans (Well, ok, some dead branches included.) That's the equivalent to Kuhns "view prior work in the context of the current paradigm."
Changing the perspective to looking from the past gives a whole different result: At a specific point in the past no one could have judged which species would take the price and pass the torch on to its descendants.

So, as I see it, Kuhn, you and me agree on the point of radical change/paragdigm change as crucial for scientific development.
BTW, George, you never really said if YOU agreed with Kuhns view

Bye,

Jens

Jens:

The ideas I've posted are generally consistent with my viewpoint, but, since I'm not the expert, I thought it would be a good idea to let Kuhn do most of the talking. Especially since I was accused of just pulling some quotes off of Amazon when I invoked his name earlier, I wanted to dig a little deeper.

Additionally, the exercise demonstrates my depth of (or lack of) understanding of a serious work after using the photoreading technique. Remember: I'm far from an expert at photoreading yet, and I'm certainly not a scientific historian.

For a different take on evolution, I recommend Jonathan Weiner's "The Beak of the Finch." I gave away my copy, but I recall his contention is that--in the case of Darwin's finches, at least--evolution is ongoing, observable, and often reverses itself depending on environmental and other circumstances.

In both cases (and this is me speaking), I think I disagree mildly with your position. Humans tend to flatten, to simplify, and to misapprehend at times. It's part of our physiology to extract patterns from observations at the cost of some detail.

The process of evolution--of physical change from one generation to the next--is much more frenetic than you suggest. It's far from a "direct line of progression." Life on earth is amazingly diverse--and often evolutionary changes can be observed geographically as well as temporally. It's not an intuitive idea, but it's documented.

I also think I haven't properly represented Kuhn's assertion that scientific truth is variable--that it depends on the paradigm, the context of the time. This is astounding, at least from an orthodox scientific perspective!

He's not saying "two plus two is sometimes five," but he is saying, in context, Ptolemy was right for his time. The theory held for hundreds of years. He wasn't disproven; just superceded.

And what Ptolemy was saying was not only something that fit the observations, it was intrinsically right. Given the context, it was a scientific truth, plain and simple.

I don't know if I entirely buy that, and I'll bet you wouldn't go that far, either, but it's an interesting thought.

--George

George:

quote:

---

In both cases (and this is me speaking), I think I disagree mildly with your position. Humans tend to flatten, to simplify, and to misapprehend at times. It's part of our physiology to extract patterns from observations at the cost of some detail.

The process of evolution--of physical change from one generation to the next--is much more frenetic than you suggest. It's far from a "direct line of progression." Life on earth is amazingly diverse--and often evolutionary changes can be observed geographically as well as temporally. It's not an intuitive idea, but it's documented.

---

I said, it seems to be a "direct line of progression". The next paragraph was intended to argue against this position, but obviously, I didn't get that across. So, second try:
Imagine the evolutionary timeline, strechting from some billion years ago to now. Stand in the now and look back: You already know the outcome, you can trace all the evolutionary steps back to single cells. So, looking back, you can construct a "direct line of progression".
Now, stand at a point some million/billion years in the past. Look around you - you will see a wide variety of life forms, all competing, struggling and surviving as best as possible. Even with knowing the principles of evolution, there's no way you can possiby say which species will be successul or even how the evolutionary changes will continue in the future.
And this seems to be mirroring Kuhn's point of view in regard to scientific development: Looking back, all past knowledge lead straight to our present paradigms.

quote:

---

He's not saying "two plus two is sometimes five," but he is saying, in context, Ptolemy was right for his time. The theory held for hundreds of years. He wasn't disproven; just superceded.

And what Ptolemy was saying was not only something that fit the observations, it was intrinsically right. Given the context, it was a scientific truth, plain and simple.

---

Well, Ptolemy was like a dinosaur: Exactly right for his time.
I'll think, I'll buy Kuhn's theory, wrap it in.
Honestly, it's quite easy to point out flaws in past argumentations because they seems so obvious to us. This does make it very difficult to accept that in the past these arguments were state-of-the-art science. But, to qoute Paul Scheele :"You can only do what your current awareness permits." And that goes not only for individuals, but for our species as a whole, for culutures and societies.

I hope, I got it across this time. I really think we're saying more or less the same.

Waiting for (dis)approval,

Jens

Jens:

I read you! (no pun, here--well, not much!)

In any event, I think it's fair to say that, while your viewpoint encompasses the perspective Kuhn suggests, his position remains somewhat radical with the concept that opposes objective scientific truth.

As I said, I don't know that I'd go as far as he does in implying that truth is relative and dependent upon the prevailing paradigm. The exercise here was to present an argument based on a reasonable comprehension of Kuhn's book that was gained almost entirely through the PR techniques.

This isn't a hardcore physics text, but it's not light reading either. While I don't have full comprehension, I was amazed at how much I'd retained after my first superreading pass once I began on the second one.

This kind of empirical evidence is personal and somewhat subjective--no electrodes or standardized tests--but it's enough for me to say that PR works. I've satisfied my curiosity about that.

--George