Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/5/84; site umich.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!gamma!epsilon!mb2c!umich!torek
From: torek@umich.UUCP (Paul V. Torek )
Newsgroups: net.philosophy
Subject: Re: Scientific advance
Message-ID: <256@umich.UUCP>
Date: Tue, 1-Oct-85 23:52:27 EDT
Article-I.D.: umich.256
Posted: Tue Oct  1 23:52:27 1985
Date-Received: Thu, 3-Oct-85 04:36:17 EDT
References: <249@umich.UUCP> <27500136@ISM780B.UUCP>
Reply-To: torek@eecs.UUCP (Paul V. Torek )
Organization: University of Michigan, EECS Dept., Ann Arbor, MI
Lines: 21
Summary: 

In article <27500136@ISM780B.UUCP> jim@ISM780B.UUCP writes:
>>I'm the first to defend the rationality of science, but this claim is
>>overly grandiose.  Science doesn't advance monotonically; T.S. Kuhn
>>showed otherwise.

>I said "nearly".  Like Rich, I am not impressed by this form of argument.
>Since I am not familiar with Kuhn, please summarize Kuhn's arguments,
>so we can all judge them for ourselves.

Read it yourself -- *The Structure of Scientific Revolutions*.  The basic
point is that theories get discarded and a branch of science practically
starts from scratch under a new "paradigm".  Kuhn admits there is progress
but denies the idea that science is built up continuously by the addition
of new facts.  Rather, in "scientific revolutions", whole sets of presumed
facts are discovered to be falsehoods.

But don't take my word for it.  Read it yourself.

more, MORE, *MORE* Mr. Nice Guy
				from
--Paul V. Torek, 					torek@umich


Brought to you by Super Global Mega Corp .com