That done, I don't know if I'm an "old-time logical positivist" and I don't care.
On 10/10/06, andie nachgeborenen <andie_nachgeborenen at yahoo.com> wrote:
> > Natural laws aren't laws. They are a search for
> > consistency and
> > predictability in observations.
>
> What are you, an old-time logical positivist?
>
> Of course scientists
> > jump on popular
> > theories. We're social animals. But that doesn't
> > affect the underlying
> > logical tests. Einstein said that God doesn't play
> > dice and nowadays
> > there's barely a physicist who would believe that -
> > but there are, so
> > even quantum physics is under attack from radical
> > String theorists and
> > such.
> >
> > My whole point here is that the idea that science is
> > a place with more
> > dogmas than the liberal arts is crazy.
>
> Who said that? Not me.
No you didn't. I was comparing directly. After all, what are we after, here? What system do we propose to get at (or near) truth faster and better than science? Metaphor?
> Science is
> > about confirming
> > theories, but COMPETING theories. And even
> > confirmations have to
> > compete. And in the process of confirming, the most
> > Kool-Aid-drinking
> > of the scientists will over-reach, his results will
> > be questioned and
> > BANG! a new theory starts.
>
> Mostly not, mostly, as Kuhn teaches, science is about
> solving problems within existing theories. Einstrin
> gor his Nobel for the photoelectric effect (problem
> solving), not relativity (revolutionary challenge).
> The Popperian theory of science as a Millean process
> of free inquiry, or as a Feyerabendian game in which
> anything goes, is too optimistic. Anyway wrong. Kuhn
> was write, Most science is normal problem solving
> within a theory.
I didn't say my bit well. I meant to acknowledge that most of scientific work is done to confirm existing theories. I think that's natural and desirable. But confirmation from within a theory is often destructive to it. People over-apply the model. They make dogmatic statements. They try to push it too far. With their armies of sycophantic students, professors get too bold.
Kuhn makes a valid observation, obviously, but either he or his adherents go too far in suggesting that science is somehow intrinsically flawed. The suggestion becomes that there is some system ancillary to science or some change that could be made to the fundamental ideas behind science that would help it find "the truth". I'm extremely suspicious of that. I'd like to see scientists embrace their own philospphy more consistently before we go about changing it. And I think it's extremely unlikely that MORE skepticism is going to be built into this new model or ancillary system.
Again, people are social animals, they tend to flock and herd. So we always have to keep that in mind. But I think the philosphy of science is abou tkeeping that in mind. Kuhn says science is imperfect. So what? He's right. But what Ravi and others seem to be suggesting is that science qua science should be doubted and I think that's not reasonable.
Science tends to change in large shifts. Okay. They seem to come pretty fast compared to essentially everything else in society.
> > > That's really the point of the scientific method,
> > that when results
> > > are offered, they are considered observations
> > which are seen to have a high
> > > likelihood of confirming a hypothesis - not a
> > fact, not a dogma, certainly
> > > not a truth - a hypothesis.
>
> Most sciencists rulke off the board as crackpottery
> ideas that offend received dogmas. You need a lot of
> juice (like a Nobel) to be considered to have a
> competing hypothesis,
Well, I think it depends on the discipline. I think the less data the discipline has to work with, the more doctrinaire they tend to be. "I don't know" is a less appealing thing to say when you have to say it all the time.
I think people are also hungry for new theories and that's something you're forgetting here. String theory is largely untestable and incredibly arcane, but people keep it around because of the promise and because it offers insights.
Finally, I think that - even since Kuhn wrote - we are seeing a filtering down of the effect of quantum mechanics (and probability and statistics generally) on all sciences. As computing power grows and statistical tests are easier to do, uncertainty is much less daunting. You can say something about a cloud of data, rather than having to design an experiment that shows causality in a mechanical way. The more people talk in terms of correlations and likelihoods, the less they get hung up on causality and "truth". I think this will tend to smooth out what Kuhn observed - and let's remember how we got here. It was science what brung us.
Boddi
P.S. - As for the faster than light thing - sure it is well-explained by quantum mechanics - conceptually anyway - but look at various theries of the early universe. String theorists are ready to throw out the Einstein model in the special circumstances of the early universe.
And it really is true that people look for the evidence of faster-than-light particles. Of course it seems like a ridiculous idea - time consuming for no real benefit, but my point is that people really do question the fundamental "laws of nature".