Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/18/84; site uscvax.UUCP
Path: utzoo!linus!decvax!tektronix!hplabs!sdcrdcf!oberon!uscvax!kurtzman
From: kurtzman@uscvax.UUCP (Stephen Kurtzman)
Newsgroups: net.philosophy
Subject: Re: Scientific advance
Message-ID: <44@uscvax.UUCP>
Date: Fri, 4-Oct-85 19:49:24 EDT
Article-I.D.: uscvax.44
Posted: Fri Oct  4 19:49:24 1985
Date-Received: Wed, 9-Oct-85 03:25:28 EDT
References: <249@umich.UUCP> <27500136@ISM780B.UUCP> <256@umich.UUCP>
Reply-To: kurtzman@usc-cse.UUCP (Stephen Kurtzman)
Organization: CS&CE Depts, U.S.C., Los Angeles, CA
Lines: 55
Summary: 

In article <256@umich.UUCP> torek@eecs.UUCP (Paul V. Torek ) writes:
>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.
>
>--Paul V. Torek, 					torek@umich


Kuhn did show anything in his exposition. He made important observations
backed up by historical anecdotes. These observations are not law and there
are problems with his theories. For instance, how do you explain the fact
that at any given time there are really many paradigms in operation for a
branch of science? Look at computer science - what is its paradigm. Clearly
CS as a science is operating under many different paradigms. Newton's
revolutionary way of looking at physics is often sited as a scientific
revolution. In the changes to physics since Newton, Newton's work has been
incorporated, not thrown out. Newtonian physics is still taught to high
school students and undergraduates. This doesn't seem to fit in with Kuhn's
notion of scientific revolution.

Don't misinterpret what I am saying. I am not saying the Kuhn is all wet. I
am merely saying that Kuhn didn't prove anything. He only pointed out a
different facet of the way science seems to work from time to time. I
suppose if this were 20 or 30 years ago people would be saying "You should
read Popper, he has shown that ....".

One important thing to remember about science is that it is a human art form.
If this were not the case concepts such as elegance and beauty would never
enter into scientific discussions. They often do. If science were some mono-
lithic God given system there would be no discussion of scientific
revolutions. But, at the same time, science does advance by building on
the work of previous generations. Mathematics is a good example. Even though
we have come a long way since Euclid, his methods are still used today.
Clearly, science advances by tearing down when appropriate and building up
when appropriate.

Another important thing to remember about science is that the scientific
method yields results where dogma cannot. So that from a purely pragmatic
standpoint one can say that the way science has worked up until now may not
be perfect but it is the best method we have so far for discovering useful
things.