Kuhn’s Structure of Scientific Revolutions

[Anonymous No.10216200]

>experimental data always has multiple interpretations; arbitrarily- decided- upon consensus determines the “correct” interpretation
>science only appears to “progress” because most scientists operate within same paradigm
>scientific education involves dogmatically asserting assumptions necessary to support paradigm

Well shit. Turns out science isn’t any more special or objective than any other academic field.
I’m losing interest, anons. I thought science was the contemporary world’s refutation of the ignorance of the past. Turns out we’re just as naive and ignorant as they were.
Why do we think we’re so special? Why do we think we’ve finally figured things out? Every age before us thought the exact same thing and they all turned out to be wrong. So will we. The scientific paradigm is a contemporary fad which will end and be replaced by some other means of acquiring “””knowledge”””

[Anonymous No.10216210]

>>10216200
>experimental data always has multiple interpretations; arbitrarily- decided- upon consensus determines the “correct” interpretation
Not always, for example I don't think anyone is seriously going to argue about the interpretation of Newtonian mechanics. Even relativity, which completely upended its foundations, is in practice only a small correction except in extreme limits that aren't typically encountered for all practical purposes.
So no, I wouldn't say that science is just as naive and ignorant as pre-scientific attempts at knowledge.
Thanks for reminding me I need to read this book though, maybe I'll change my mind and fall into despair as well

[Anonymous No.10216236]

>>10216210
>Not always, for example I don't think anyone is seriously going to argue about the interpretation of Newtonian mechanics. Even relativity, which completely upended its foundations, is in practice only a small correction except in extreme limits that aren't typically encountered for all practical purposes.
Kuhn actually addresses this point. He argues that quantum mechanics is actually something fundamentally different from Newtonian mechanics because Newtonian mechanics is more than just formulas- it’s inextricably tied to the assumptions that mass and time are constant. Sure, Einstein took hints from Newton, but the system he created is a model of a fundamentally different world.

But yeah, definitely read it. Even if you don’t buy the arguments it’ll give you a good picture of where scientific paradigms cone from and how they progress and die.

[Anonymous No.10216258]

>>10216236
I guess whether you have a problem with this depends on how autistic you are about knowing the "truth" about reality, if that exists and is intelligible to humans. My gut instinct is to say that if a model can be used to predict phenomena well enough to be used in practice, that already counts as having "figured things out" at least on a fundamentally higher level than not having a model at all.

[Anonymous No.10216274]

>>10216258
but that’s lame

[Anonymous No.10216291]

>>10216274
Why? Understanding can only be verified when it's validated against real experience anyway. The fact that there are so many cranks and pseudoscientists should attest to that. If it doesn't predict, the odds that the "understanding" is a delusion in the first place are just too high. If you don't like that, you might as well just stick to pure mathematics.

[Anonymous No.10216348]

>>10216200
>I thought science was the contemporary world’s refutation of the ignorance of the past.
That's popsci's notion, yes. Nothing is ever so simple, it's a good thing that it isn't the case.

[Anonymous No.10217737]

>>10216200
scientific progress isn't linear as kuhn would have you believe. look into feyerabend's idea of scientific proliferation.

[Anonymous No.10218437]

>>10216200
>he fell for the meme
pretty much the only reason you should be studying science nowadays is out of genuine curiosity, and rarely for money