Hi

On Fri, 10 Nov 2000, Dewey Dykstra, Jr. wrote:
> >Hi [Jim Clark wrote]
> >On Fri, 10 Nov 2000, sdv wrote:
> >> Any experts on Kuhn out there to deconstruct and reply to this overstated
> >> nonsense?
> >First, let us hear what Kuhn himself had to say (not that his
> >very clear statement did much to prevent any number of people
> >from misinterpreting him).  In short, Kuhn was appalled at the
> >kinds of extrapolations that people made from his work.  Here are
> >some passages from the addendum to his book (I would especially
> >draw sdv's attention to Kuhn's inclusion of the word "accuracy"
> >as one determining factor in theory acceptance, which seems a
> >reasonable synonym of "correctness" in this context):
>
> Kuhn died in the 90's.  All of the citations here are from 20 years before.
> Wouldn't it be better to base an argument attributed to Kuhn on more recent
> references?

The citations were to the later edition of Kuhn's seminal work,
which is still what is cited by most of the critics of
science.  It was sdv who cited Kuhn's name, but there was no
citation given.  If a more recent or less cited reference that
was intended, then let us hear it.  What the Kuhn citation shows
is that Kuhn himself did not believe that his work discredited
traditional scientific criteria such as accuracy.

> In addition I do not base my argument on Kuhn despite the fact that some
> might relate it to things that have been said about him.

I cannot parse this statement in a way that makes sense.

Best wishes
Jim

 ===========================================================================
James M. Clark                          (204) 786-9757
Department of Psychology                (204) 774-4134 Fax
University of Winnipeg                  4L05D
Winnipeg, Manitoba  R3B 2E9             [log in to unmask]
CANADA                                  http://www.uwinnipeg.ca/~clark
 ===========================================================================