Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/18/84; site spar.UUCP
Path: utzoo!linus!decvax!decwrl!spar!ellis
From: ellis@spar.UUCP (Michael Ellis)
Newsgroups: net.philosophy
Subject: Re: Scientific advance
Message-ID: <575@spar.UUCP>
Date: Tue, 8-Oct-85 03:59:13 EDT
Article-I.D.: spar.575
Posted: Tue Oct  8 03:59:13 1985
Date-Received: Wed, 9-Oct-85 07:01:28 EDT
References: <249@umich.UUCP> <27500136@ISM780B.UUCP> <256@umich.UUCP> <44@uscvax.UUCP>
Reply-To: ellis@spar.UUCP (Michael Ellis)
Organization: Schlumberger Palo Alto Research, CA
Lines: 72

>>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]
>
>..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.

   But Einsteinian advances TOTALLY DISCARDED many Newtonian concepts that
   possessed genuine explicative value (ie- absolute time & simultaneity,
   luminiferous ether, and so on). Similarly, QM has discarded causal
   determinism and the absolute existence of physical attributes not
   measured. These rather indicate that the deletion of obsolete facts is as
   important as the continuous addition of new ones.  Please note that these
   are not negative criticisms of science, either..

>.. If science were some monolithic God given system there would be no
> discussion of scientific revolutions. 

    How, then, do you account for the advances in religion over the
    past 100 years? Most enlightened Christian churches now proclaim
    the validity of many non-Christian faiths. There have
    been parallel efforts in Hunduism (Gandhi), Islam (Sufists like
    Hazrat Inayat Khan), Catholicism (Merton), Buddhism (Suzuki) to
    unify the best of the world's religious traditions.
    
    Those who refuse to see this trend have focused on the worst
    failings of religion.    

>.. 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.

    But math, as opposed to science, never `tears down' its long-standing
    truths -- it only adds to them. Euclidean geometry was never discarded
    as obsolete -- it is currently a totally valid subset of Riemannian
    geometry. Math is not dependent on any empirical knowledge for its
    validation as is thus eternally true.

>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. 

    But science IS based on dogma -- namely, the (reasonable) assertion that 
    its knowledge be based on empirical observation. There's nothing wrong
    with this fact, except when overly dogmatic scientists assert that
    noncontradictory knowledge gained by other sources MUST be false. Again,
    it is to science's credit that it does not allow statements verified
    only by, say, mystical revelation into its body of knowledge. It is
    also to science's credit that it can help religions update their creeds
    by noting contradictory assertions in religious texts. Where advocates
    of science overstep their bounds is when they attack the
    noncontradictory notions of religion.
   
    Note that most extra-logical systems which are open to new knowledge do,
    in fact evolve, regardless of dogmatic underpinning. Judaism,
    Christianity, Buddhism, or even astrology are hardly the same today as
    they were 1000 or even 100 years ago.

-michael