All
Any experts on Kuhn out there to deconstruct and reply to this overstated
nonsense?
sdv
jim clark wrote:
> Hi
>
> On Fri, 10 Nov 2000, Dewey Dykstra, Jr. wrote:
> > >Hmmm..but surely you miss the point that science is self-correcting. The
> > >theory proposed in 1987 is longer supported as science has moved on. This
> > >list appears to cater to those who would attack science for various
> > >reasons. Are we supposed to believe that it is some kind of miracle that
> > >the theory of general relativity has been vindicated by empirical studies
> > >of binary pulsars to within one part in ten to the power twelve?
> > > Stanley Jeffers
> >
> > How do we KNOW "science is self-correcting"? Theories change, sure. The
> > changes usually result in our explanations encompassing more of our
> > experiences each time. BUT, how do we know these are more "correct"?
>
> It is hard to answer a question where "correct" is in quotation
> marks, as that suggests some idiosyncratic or unknown use of the
> term. By one meaning of correct (i.e., corresponding to
> experience), your own statements make clear that the statement is
> "science is self-correcting" is almost tautological. Moreover,
> the improved correspondence, prediction, control, etc. requires
> some explanation. How do _you_ explain the improvement if it is
> not due to closer correspondence with reality (i.e.,
> correctness)? The idea that it is simply "change" would seem to
> imply that we could move in any direction, from more to less
> correspondence, from one degree of correspondence to the same
> degree, or from less to more (the typical pattern in science).
>
> > At any given time, how do we know that there is not another explanation
> > which does not just as well explain all experience so far plus more that
> > our current explanation does not?
>
> How do we know that all humans are going to die, that the sun
> will rise in the morning, ...? This naive position simply leaves
> one wallowing in complete ignorance about _all_ future
> events. Don't give me some hypothetical possibility; specify the
> alternative so we can see if it does as well as existing theory
> and so we can design a study to discriminate between the
> competing theories.
>
> > The only data we have, all the data we have so far tells us there is always
> > such a new explanation, the character of which or direction of which was
> > not imagined. If the history of science appears to tell us nothing else,
> > it appears to tell us this, doesn't it?
>
> Not on my reading. Rather history tells us that scientific
> theories move from less to more complete correspondences with
> reality. How could it be otherwise, at least without some kind
> of divine guidance that would infuse us with complete insight
> into the nature of the world? That is, we start out in a state
> of relative ignorance, depending on the current knowledge in some
> domain, and through creative, painstaking, tediuous scientific
> work we drag ourselves slowly out of ignorance. Your
> characterization also seems to make the unwarranted assumption
> that former well-founded theories (which probably only properly
> applies to theories of the last few hundred years) are completely
> overthrown by later theories. I suspect that scientists like
> Newton and Darwin are still so greatly respected because they
> largely were correct in their ideas, although these were
> qualified and adapted by later scientific work.
>
> > I would add too that with each major new explanation the
> > assumed nature of the phenomenon has changed in an
> > unpredictable, non-asymptotic way. Light was something that
> > came from the eyes, then it was rays from sources, then it
> > was tiny particles, then it was waves of aether, then it was
> > waves of EM field, then it was chunks of energy... This is
> > not an asymptotic approach to anything, yet all the while we
> > are able to explain more and more of our possible experience
> > with the phenomenon we call light.
>
> I am unclear why you are so confident that it is _not_ an
> asymptotic approach to anything, yet still recognize that we can
> explain more of our experiences. What grounds do you have for
> rejecting the idea that "chunks of energy" is more correct than
> "waves of aether" which in many ways is more correct than light
> coming from the eyes. With respect to the latter, you also
> appear pretty liberal with what you call "scientific
> theory." Wouldn't philosophical speculation be a better
> characterization of light coming from the eyes.
>
> > I'm not attacking science, but I am taking issues with
> > representations of science that do not seem to make sense.
>
> No, you are attacking science, whether you think so or not. You
> are lending credence to some far-fetched pseudo-philosophical
> ideas ("fashionable nonsense" to use Sokal and Bricmont's phrase)
> that many claim do undermine science, supposedly making science
> no better than and perhaps even subservient to other ways of
> knowing (narrative, intuition, ...). You might think that you
> are just gently lapping against the hard rock of science, but, as
> Darwin argued and demonstrated so well in several domains (i.e.,
> atolls, earthworms, evolution), dramatic transformations can
> result from the cumulative influence of what seem like feeble
> causal factors incommensurate with their profound ultimate
> effects.
>
> If one instead subjects these alleged challenges to science to
> the kinds of rigorous and critical criteria for knowledge that
> are commonplace in science, then one sees how very feeble are the
> criticisms and how little consideration they actually deserve.
>
> 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
> ============================================================================
|
