Thursday, December 4, 2014

556: Is there value-neutral science?

Almost everybody would agree that scientific knowledge has sometimes been used for unethical ends in the manufacture of nuclear, biological, and chemical weapons, for example.
.
But cases such as these do not show that there is something ethically objectionable about scientific knowledge itself. 
It is the use to which that knowledge is put that is unethical. Indeed, many philosophers  would say that it makes no sense to talk about science or scientific knowledge being ethical or unethical per se. 
.
For science is concerned with facts, and facts in themselves have no ethical significance. It is what we do with those facts  that is right or wrong, moral or immoral. 
.
According to this view science is essentially a value-free activity.Its job is just to provide information about world. What society chooses to do with that information  is another matter.
.
Not all philosophers accept this picture of science as neutral with respect to matters of value, nor the underlying fact - value dichotomy on which it rests.
Some argue that the ideal of value-neutrality is unattainable. Scientific enquiry is invariably laden with value judgements. 
.
One argument against the possibility of value-free science stems from the obvious fact that scientists have to choose what to study. Not everything can be examined at once. 
.
So judgements about the relative importance of different possible objects of study will have to be made, and these are value judgements, in a weak sense. 
.
Another argument stems from the fact, that any set of data can in principle be explained in more than one way.  A scientist's choice of theory will thus never be uniquely determined by his data. 
.
Some philosophers take this to show that values are inevitably involved in theory choice, and thus that science cannot possibly be value-free. 
.
A third argument is that scientific knowledge cannot be divorced from its intended applications in the way that value-neutrality would require. 
.
On this view, it is naive to picture scientists as disinterestedly doing research for its own sake, without a thought for its practical applications. 
.
The fact that much scientific research today is funded by private enterprises, who obviously have vested commercial interests, lends some credence to this view.
To conclude, it is inevitable that an enterprise such as science, which occupies so pivotal a role in modern society and commands so much public money, should find itself subject to criticism from a variety of sources. 
.
It is also a good thing, for uncritical acceptance of everything that scientists say and do would be both unhealthy and dogmatic. 
.
It is safe to predict that science in the 21st century, through its technological applications, will impact on everyday life to an even greater extent than it has already. 
.
So the question “Is science a good thing?” or “Is science right?” will become yet more pressing. 
.
Philosophical reflection may not produce a final, unequivocal answer to this question, as we have seen several times,
.
but so far we have tried to isolate key issues and evaluate them in a rational, balanced discussion of them.
.
With this lecture I conclude this project on the Philosophy of Science. Next Thursday I’ll introduce to you the new project: “A Philosopher looks at Atheism”.
.
Thank you…the floor is yours ^_^
.

Main Sources:
MacMillan The Encyclopedia of Philosophy, 2nd edition
Routledge Encyclopedia of Philosophy, 1995
A Historical Introduction to the Philosophy of Science, John Losee (2001)

The Structure of Scientific Revolutions, T. Kuhn (1962)

Philosophy of Science - A contemporary introduction, Alex Rosenberg (2005)

Philosophy of Science - A Very Short Introduction, Samir Okasha 


The Discussion

[13:17] ZANICIA Chau: thank you Harman
[13:17] Gemma Cleanslate: well
[13:17] Fitch Woodrunner: Thank you Herman!
[13:17] ZANICIA Chau: Herman, sorry
[13:17] Gemma Cleanslate: back where we were i think
[13:17] Corona Anatine: Well a lot of the negative uses come from application during warfare
[13:18] herman Bergson: Yes Gemma...the art of philosophy is finding the right questions....not the ultimate answers :-)
[13:18] Corona Anatine: so that in some ways there are those who argue that a use which shortens a war is a good usage
[13:18] Gemma Cleanslate: as usual
[13:18] Corona Anatine: even if the immediate effects are negative for the 'enemy'
[13:19] Corona Anatine: especially if such an 'enemy' is considerd as socially or ideologically negative
[13:19] herman Bergson: I think the most important thing is that we ar conscious of the fact that science is a thing we create.....not some monolithic thing which exists independent of our actions
[13:19] ZANICIA Chau: There was another report from Nasa today refuting rumours that the world will shut down next week for 6 days. They had to make a statement to quell all the Q's from ppl. That tells me ppl are still taking scientific things as gospel
[13:19] Corona Anatine: indeed withouth humans there would be no scinece
[13:20] Gemma Cleanslate GIGGLES!!
[13:20] Gemma Cleanslate: ...LOL...
[13:20] Fitch Woodrunner: In my expierience, Science has been about Discovery. What they discover can be used by others, but science should make no judgments about what is discovered... my apologies if this breaks into the current chat stream :P
[13:21] Gemma Cleanslate: that makes a lot of sense
[13:21] herman Bergson: Well you point at the meanig of scoience Fitch....
[13:21] Corona Anatine: np I was just pointing forward an idea /arguemtn for discussion further
[13:21] Vigos Lyric: Though as Mr. Bergson mention, scientists must choose their work. Which is sometimes led by wherever they can get funding
[13:21] ZANICIA Chau: I quite agree Jakey
[13:21] herman Bergson: And indeed some people take science as gospel...which is a problem in my opinion...
[13:22] herman Bergson: Indeed Vogos...
[13:22] herman Bergson: Vigos...
[13:22] herman Bergson: Good example is the pharmaceutical industry.....
[13:23] Fitch Woodrunner: Vigos, some scientists have an agenda, or others work for a company with an agenda. Yet
[13:23] Corona Anatine: well the rigorous peer review is a sort of gospel standard but a good one as it ensures credibility of research
[13:23] Fitch Woodrunner: oops
[13:23] Gemma Cleanslate: if there is peer review
[13:23] herman Bergson: Doesn’t work all the time Corona....
[13:23] ZANICIA Chau: I am completely No. ! sucker if they mention new peptides or something in a new face cream!!!!
[13:23] Fitch Woodrunner: hehe indeed
[13:23] Vigos Lyric: Yes indeed. It seems to be clear that commercial profit is a heavy driving force in scientific pursuit. And I would also say the military invests heavily with focused interest as well
[13:23] Gemma Cleanslate: ♥ LOL ♥
[13:24] Gemma Cleanslate: or add a bit of zyx miracle oil
[13:24] ZANICIA Chau: exactly
[13:24] herman Bergson: It even happened on apolitical level here in my country....
[13:24] Corona Anatine: ok then platinum standard which should be aspired to
[13:24] Gemma Cleanslate: the science behind cosmetics and diet pills have no basis in real science
[13:24] herman Bergson: There the Secretary of Education stated that scientific research..funded with tax money should have social relevance....
[13:25] Corona Anatine: nor much of the beauty market
[13:25] Corona Anatine: but is that the science or the advertisers claims?
[13:25] herman Bergson: which for instance could mean....close the study of Sanskrit....
[13:25] ZANICIA Chau: good point Corona
[13:25] Corona Anatine: you dont feel that sanscrit might have social relevance ?
[13:26] ZANICIA Chau: heheh
[13:26] Gemma Cleanslate: ha
[13:26] herman Bergson: Cosmetics in advertizment is a bunch of pseudo scientific babble :-)
[13:26] Gemma Cleanslate: well it might in some way
[13:26] Gemma Cleanslate: like latin
[13:26] Corona Anatine: there is a lot of pseudo science babble about but such is not science by definition
[13:27] ZANICIA Chau: well ppl fell for the 'babble' of the world going into darkness for 6 days!
[13:27] Vigos Lyric: Ideally, I think science should be an internationally cumulative effort which has practical applications but also pursues knowledge in areas we are lacking, such as studying the brain. But it's clear scientific work takes investment
[13:27] Fitch Woodrunner: Going back to the lecture, where you offer the idea that a Scientist's theory can alter the data, and that there may be more than one interpretation... I see several examples of that in Evolution, Physics, Chemistry, I wonder how much of what we "know" today is based on a theory which may be based on someone's clouded judgement?
[13:27] herman Bergson: At least , I could assume, that we all see that there does not exist something like SCIENCE.....
[13:27] Corona Anatine: also in relation to 'social relevance -' a lot of the discoveries form the appolo programm were found to have social relevance - but not till after the discoveries were made
[13:28] herman Bergson: Ahh Fitch....Thomas Kuhn is pretty clear about that issue...
[13:28] Gemma Cleanslate: true corona
[13:28] Fitch Woodrunner: Cornoa, exactly, many Scientific discoveries had no practical applications until much later
[13:29] Fitch Woodrunner: like Silly Putty or the Slinky
[13:29] Corona Anatine: But it's clear scientific work takes investment
 -not true - expensive scientific work takes investement but even today some aspects can be done by amateurs
[13:29] ZANICIA Chau: hahaha
[13:29] herman Bergson: Always a difficult argument, Corona, pointing at spin offs from things like that
[13:29] Corona Anatine: for example the work done by amateur astronomers
[13:30] Corona Anatine: yeh the spin offs can never be predicted
[13:30] herman Bergson: To add some more to Fitch's remark...
[13:30] Vigos Lyric: To comment on a scientist having clouded judgment Fitch, that is why I think science should be taken seriously, involve critical analysis, peer review, and educated participants
[13:31] Gemma Cleanslate: very good idea
[13:31] Vigos Lyric: Sorry for stepping on your toe there, Herman
[13:31] herman Bergson: Kuhn shows that theories are kind of defended against anomalies....most of the time by ad hoc solutions...
[13:31] herman Bergson: Just because there are interests of groups involved...
[13:32] herman Bergson: No..you are right Vigos...I agree....but also science has shown to be all too human :-)
[13:32] Fitch Woodrunner: I just looked up Kuhn, thank you btw, and yes I agree... " Competing paradigms are frequently incommensurable; that is, they are competing accounts of reality which cannot be coherently reconciled."
[13:32] Corona Anatine: of course some with very different views concerning the causality of the universe
[13:33] herman Bergson: There is that famous story about that phony scientific article ...submitted to a magazine and "peer reviewed" and published...
[13:33] herman Bergson: I forgot the names involved....
[13:34] herman Bergson: Was a very embarressing case ...
[13:34] Vigos Lyric: To comment on what Corona said about science not necessarily needing funding, I agree that scientific work does not always need expensive funding. An amateur can make discoveries too and that data, if significant, should not be discounted. But some work really does need expensive instruments or experts to further research, such as biochemical analysis into proteins
[13:34] Corona Anatine: indeed so - it does depend on what is being studied
[13:34] Fitch Woodrunner: Herman, have you heard of the experiments where scientists actually affected the outcome with their thoughts?
[13:35] herman Bergson: No...
[13:35] Gemma Cleanslate: hopes not
[13:35] ZANICIA Chau: anyone remember War of the Worlds on the old radio? ppl were frightened to death it was all real back then! Have we really advanced?
[13:35] Gemma Cleanslate: but there are those who think they can
[13:35] Corona Anatine: in saome ways all experiments are affected by thoughts
[13:35] herman Bergson: Yes indeed Zan....they believed it!
[13:35] Fitch Woodrunner: the 3 dots leads me to believe you're calling the men in white coats? lol
[13:36] ZANICIA Chau: lol
[13:36] Vigos Lyric: I think ?I heard of one of those phony articles, Herman. Though I heard it was published by a vanity press, which will publish mostly anything. It certainly wouldn't need any actual scientific basis. Which is unfortunately as no scientific work should be published through a vanity press
[13:37] Fitch Woodrunner: my point was, the peer review wanted to believe in the results in those articles, so they created the evidence to support it, just from beliefe
[13:37] Gemma Cleanslate: hmmm
[13:37] ZANICIA Chau: created?
[13:37] herman Bergson: I don’t recall the details, Vigos, but we also had a prof here who manipulated data on the use of beta-blockers for heart patients during surgery......
[13:37] Corona Anatine: and there in lies one of the problems -in that too many of the general populs scientists are almost like preistly keepers of the mysteries and science aquires a level of mythic
[13:37] ZANICIA Chau: You mean fabricated?
[13:38] herman Bergson: He may even be responsible because of his publications for the death of people
[13:38] Corona Anatine: msytic which other try to acquire by emulation
[13:38] Fitch Woodrunner: not fabricated, I mean they wanted it to be real so badly, that it was
[13:38] Corona Anatine: [like with 'clever hans']
[13:38] Vigos Lyric: But that does bring up a good point. How the public reacts to what is deemed "scientific" (truely or not) is just as important as the scientific work itself. A work or factoid that is accepted, which is unscientific, could undermine science by muddying the public's scientific knowledge with pseudo-science
[13:39] ZANICIA Chau: Exactly so!
[13:39] Corona Anatine: or by attempting to scientifically verify religious claims
[13:40] ZANICIA Chau: that will be brought up next week!
[13:40] herman Bergson: :-) my next project..:-)
[13:40] Corona Anatine: a whole minefield in itself
[13:40] Fitch Woodrunner: Someone hacks into the news media, all the papers, magazines, major news channels, for one day fills it with The President Has Been Shot. America would go crazy... then the next day Prez Obama would be like "Chill out, I'm ok, wtf is wrong with all of you?"
[13:40] Gemma Cleanslate: oh boy
[13:40] herman Bergson: Or the omnipotent fMRI scanners of brains....
[13:41] herman Bergson: Well...a lot of iteresting thoughts fly around here again....
[13:41] Fitch Woodrunner: people, and I'm one of them, freak out so easily,
[13:42] herman Bergson: Maybe a good idea to cool down our brains again ^_^
[13:42] herman Bergson: Thank you all for you participation....
[13:42] Gemma Cleanslate: ♥ Thank Youuuuuuuuuu!! ♥
[13:42] ZANICIA Chau: I think we reached em passe
[13:42] Fitch Woodrunner: science is important, we should be spending more on science and medicine than we do on the military and football player salaries :P
[13:42] herman Bergson: Class dismissed...^_^
[13:42] Ciska Riverstone: thank you
[13:42] Gemma Cleanslate: don’t miss the christmas expo that opens dec 4
[13:42] ZANICIA Chau: thank you Herman, illuminating as ever
[13:43] Corona Anatine: i second jakey
[13:43] Vigos Lyric: An interesting thing about this whole topic is that scientific knowledge, once public, is free to be re-interpreted. I think the public has a powerful influence on how scientific works and tools are viewed. If the masses decide the LHC is a danger to humanity, it is threatened, which could block our work into particle physics
[13:43] Gemma Cleanslate: for the benefit of the relay
[13:43] herman Bergson: And yes Gemma...next Thursday we'll enter a minefield ^_^
[13:43] Gemma Cleanslate GIGGLES!!
[13:43] Gemma Cleanslate: ...LOL...
[13:43] Gemma Cleanslate: okk
[13:43] Vigos Lyric: Awww
[13:43] Fitch Woodrunner: ah well, my apologies again, this appears to be another portuguese incident :P
[13:43] Ciska Riverstone: good day or night folks .)
[13:43] Corona Anatine: or relocate it to nations which are less bothered
[13:43] herman Bergson: Yes Vigos, I agree...
[13:43] Corona Anatine: thus letting go of bein gin the forefront of reseacrh
[13:43] ZANICIA Chau: Night night everyone
[13:44] Gemma Cleanslate: Bye, Bye   
[13:44] Gemma Cleanslate: for now
[13:44] herman Bergson: Bye Zan :-)
[13:44] Vigos Lyric: Class is over so soon? I felt like it was just getting good :(
[13:44] bergfrau Apfelbaum: byebye all and ty herman&class:-)
[13:44] bergfrau Apfelbaum: ***** APPPPPPPLLLLAAAUUUSSSSEEEEEEE***********
[13:44] herman Bergson: Yes I know, Vigos....
[13:44] Corona Anatine: it was getting good - but if no one adds to it....
[13:44] Fitch Woodrunner: oh the big particle smashing donut, yes we need that, there are no reasons for it, but we need it
[13:45] Vigos Lyric: Yes that big donut around France and Switzerland
[13:45] herman Bergson: Ahhh CERN.....yes....
[13:46] herman Bergson: I guess it is mainly about prestige...
[13:46] Corona Anatine: lol yeh and the fears that were expressed that it might destroy the earth
[13:46] Fitch Woodrunner: I want a Mr. Fusion on my car, dammit, so we need to get going
[13:46] Vigos Lyric: Well I do think particle physics is important to understand. We don't know enough about the quantum realm
[13:46] Corona Anatine: well we are half way to using water as fuel - few years off before its universal tho
[13:47] herman Bergson: True Vigos....
[13:47] Fitch Woodrunner: and using really big magnets to smash stuff is fun
[13:47] Corona Anatine: lol yeh
[13:47] Fitch Woodrunner: film it, turn it into a spectator sport
[13:47] herman Bergson: but you might wonder....if people begin to asks for social relevance.....
[13:47] herman Bergson: what does it bring us?
[13:47] Corona Anatine: i5t has been done - some really big projects have utilised small PC users to help
[13:47] Vigos Lyric: I honestly think that will be a political and corporate battle, Corona... I'm a pessimist there but I think established money has a lot of sway. Perhaps if we could socially move towards cleaner energy...
[13:47] herman Bergson: Where is the profit in knowing there are higgs particles....
[13:48] Vigos Lyric: more efficient energy..
[13:48] Fitch Woodrunner: there was a water engine built in 1900, but the inventor died in a mysterious car crash and his lab burnt to the ground
[13:48] Corona Anatine: it bringas us knowledge herman which can be a reward in itself
[13:49] Vigos Lyric: There is social relevance in cheaper energy I think
[13:49] Vigos Lyric: cheaper utilities!
[13:49] Vigos Lyric: maybe
[13:49] herman Bergson: I agree...from a philosophical point of view I support this search for knwledge....
[13:49] herman Bergson: But I think it is not a neo-liberalist interest...
[13:50] Corona Anatine: not so sure Vigos- if the population keeps match with the energy usage then the price will remain the same
[13:50] Vigos Lyric: But.. clean, efficient energy is about long-term thinking. It seems the public at large thinks in the short term much of the time and demands goods and services now, not considering consequences enough
[13:50] Corona Anatine: no surprises there Vigos
[13:50] herman Bergson: The money makers are also short term thinkers Vigos...
[13:51] Corona Anatine: plus a lot of thought in society is geared to a 4 year timescale
[13:51] Corona Anatine: in the democracies anyway
[13:51] Vigos Lyric: That starts getting into general philosophy because I think it's everyone's duty to consider long-term effects of what they buy, support, believe
[13:51] Vigos LyricVigos Lyric begins showing his bias
[13:52] herman Bergson: I agree, Vigos, but the banks, stockholders, hedgefunds and others who control this planet do not think like that, I fear
[13:52] Corona Anatine: while in those nations ruled by 'god' or dictators - social usages of science is not priority
[13:52] Vigos Lyric: Perhaps more social and political pressure is neded. I just read NYC is experiencing a lot of protests
[13:53] Vigos Lyric: unrelated to energy but it's pressure at work
[13:54] Fitch Woodrunner: To make it right, we'd need to tear down the whole system, and begin using a better system a minute later. The world as a whole would need to be involved. We are so very far from that ever happening, so instead we clean up the messes as best we can and try to make the lives of a few people a lil better
[13:55] herman Bergson: Not as long as the other name for god is profit and greed Fitch
[13:55] Corona Anatine: ther eis a way that could be done - but it would involve a massive amount of death
[13:55] Beertje Beaumont: sorry I have to go, it's late
[13:55] Beertje Beaumont: have a goodnight
[13:55] herman Bergson: Bye Beertje :-)
[13:55] Beertje Beaumont: bye Herman
[13:55] Corona Anatine: because after WW" both Germany and Japan had societies rebuilt from stracth which are fairly succesful
[13:55] Vigos Lyric: I agree that it'll take a lot of shifting things around.. For example, to adjust to a totally different energy system, we'd need to rebuild the grid (which in the US I've read is starting to get seriously dated), create new energy plants, and somehow deal with the gas giants
[13:56] Corona Anatine: i asume you mean the corporations not jupiter and saturn
[13:56] Vigos Lyric: lol
[13:56] Vigos Lyric: yes
[13:57] Vigos Lyric: corporate gas giants
[13:57] Vigos LyricVigos Lyric imagines Jupiter with a corporate logo
[13:57] Fitch Woodrunner: Killing off all the stupid people isn't an option, because that intelligence is a sliding scale and everyone has their idea of what stupid is, I would be on someone's list :P
[13:57] Vigos Lyric: That would be pseudo-science put to dangerous work..
[13:57] Corona Anatine: ah IS is in silico nothign to do with role playing a jihadist psychotic
[13:57] herman Bergson: Yes, not a good idea Fitch.....
[13:57] Vigos Lyric: we don't fully understand what intelligence is and how it works
[13:58] Vigos Lyric: Haha, yes Corona. Insilico
[13:58] herman Bergson: I told you Vigos....!
[13:58] Corona Anatine: oh i wasnt suggesting we kill of the 'stupid' but i do feel that if we dont put controls on our own excesses then soem natural force wil do it for us eventually
[13:59] Vigos Lyric: WWII is a great example of pseudo-social science and genetics put to work to undermine ourselves..
[13:59] Vigos Lyric: lol, Herman. you were the first to mention that
[13:59] herman Bergson: and within the hour you got a second one Vigos :-))
[14:00] herman Bergson: But that is because you came to my class..the rest of SL wont notice :-))
[14:00] Vigos Lyric: Which is why I think people should consider long-term effects, environmentally, Corona
[14:00] Vigos Lyric: haha
[14:00] Corona Anatine: : )
[14:00] Fitch Woodrunner: teachers pet!
[14:00] Vigos Lyric: I need to read up more about the Islamic State...
[14:00] Vigos Lyric: lol
[14:01] herman Bergson: Be careful...don't loose your head....:-)
[14:01] Fitch Woodrunner: ha
[14:01] Corona Anatine: i wouldnt bother - just read the koran
[14:01] Vigos Lyric: For science and philosophy!
[14:01] Corona Anatine: as that is what they say they want to impose
[14:01] Fitch Woodrunner: hmm... not all followers of Islam are extremists :)

[14:01] Corona Anatine: nice one Herman

555: How to position Science?

Kuhn’s paradigma doctrines have generally been interpreted so as to give rise to relativism, the theory that there are no truths, 
.
or at least nothing can be asserted to be true independent of some points of view, and that disagreements between points of view are irreconcilable. 
.
The result of course is to deprive science of a position of strength from which it can defend its findings as more well justified than those of pseudo-science.
.
Of course, there are objections against this view. There are nowadays two approaches. The first one is called Realisme. Truth realism and Entity realism.
.
The realist argues that scientists ought to seek to formulate true theories that depict the structure of the universe and 
.
that the record of progress indicates that the universe has a structure largely independent of human theorizing and 
.
that our theories have provided an increasingly more accurate picture of that structure.
.
Hilary Putnam suggested in 1978 that unless one adopts a realist interpretation, the increasing predictive success achieved within the history of science would be a “miracle”.
.
Non-realists, by contrast, seek to uncouple the notions of predictive success and truth. Even Ptolemaic heliocentric planetary models were able to predict positions of planets in the sky.
.
And another question is what is meant by expressions like “approximate truth” or “progress toward truth”. 
.
No one has been able even to say what it would mean to be ‘closer to the truth’, let alone to offer criteria for determining how we could assess such proximity.
.
The “convergence-upon-truth” thesis may be unconvincing. However, there are other ways to defend realism. .
.
In particular, one may argue that the entities posited by certain scientific theories do indeed exist.
.
We can claim that there exist observable entities like  Venus, trees, the Atlantic ocean. 
.
We can extend our human senses with microscopes and the like and observe objects not registered by our bare senses.
.
Of course the conclusion that such entities exist is a conclusion based on theoretical considerations that pertain to the operation of scientific instruments.
.
This morning I read in my  newspaper that CERN had discovered again two new particles, which, however, .
.
if real, can not become phenomena for human observers, however well equipped with devices to amplify and extend the senses, qwarks, higgs particles, neutrinos…..
.
One alternative to scientific realism has long attracted some philosophers and scientists. It bears the title “instrumentalism”. 
.
This label names the view that scientific theories are useful instruments, heuristic devices, tools we employ for organizing our experience, but not literal claims about it that are either true or false.
.
It is worth noting that the history of the physical sciences from Newton onward shows a cyclical pattern of succession between realism and instrumentalism among scientists themselves. 
.
The realism of the seventeenth century, the period in which mechanism and atomism held sway, was succeeded in the eighteenth century by the ascendancy of instrumentalist approaches to science, 
.
motivated in part by the convenient way with which instrumentalism dealt with Newton’s mysterious force of gravity. 
.
By treating his theory of gravity as merely a useful instrument for calculating the motion of bodies, it could ignore the question of what gravity really is. 
.
By the nineteenth century, with advances in atomic chemistry, electricity and magnetism, the postulation of unobservable entities returned to favor among scientists.
.
 But then it again became unfashionable in the early twentieth century as problems for the realist’s interpretation of quantum mechanics as a literally true description of the world began to mount.
.
As you see, there is no clear answer to the question what science really is and in what sense it might be “right”. 
.
As gradually getting closer to the truth, as ever improving instruments or as paradigms, adhered by scientific communities?
.
Thank you …. the floor is yours … ^_^



Main Sources:
MacMillan The Encyclopedia of Philosophy, 2nd edition
Routledge Encyclopedia of Philosophy, 1995
A Historical Introduction to the Philosophy of Science, John Losee (2001)

The Structure of Scientific Revolutions, T. Kuhn (1962)

Philosophy of Science - A contemporary introduction, Alex Rosenberg (2005)



The Discussion

[13:18] herman Bergson: If you have any remarks or questions...plz go ahead
[13:18] BerwynBangarang: Truth seems to be a slippery thing to define. we have an intuition, but what does 'truth' mean? I prefer to to think in terms of observable and explainable
[13:19] Bejiita Imako: yes something like that id say too
[13:19] Pretafox: The conflict with relativism, reminds me of the "Dependent Co-arising " that Gautama spoke of. (the buddha) were truth is based around what does or does not cause suffering to us.
[13:19] herman Bergson: that is the empiricist way indeed :-)
[13:19] Bejiita Imako: that we know is the case 100 %
[13:19] Pretafox: sorry, Berwyn if I interrupted
[13:19] Bejiita Imako: but guess its more complex then that
[13:19] herman Bergson: We are in a difficult position epistemologically...
[13:19] BerwynBangarang: yes, and it work in SL with respect to building :)
[13:20] BerwynBangarang: (done)
[13:20] herman Bergson: On the one hand  we are inclined to take a realist position....
[13:20] herman Bergson: on the other hand...truth IS a slippery concept indeed....
[13:20] Bejiita Imako: can be for sure
[13:20] herman Bergson: I have no real answer to this problem...
[13:20] Areyn Laurasia: How is truth different from fact in this case?
[13:21] herman Bergson: Science is indeed inclined to talk about facts...not about truth...
[13:21] herman Bergson: But yes we have true facts....and for instance pseudo science...
[13:21] herman Bergson: which  looks factual but isn’t
[13:21] Bejiita Imako: facts can be falsified and then are not true facts, but the definition of the word fact = truth
[13:21] Bejiita Imako: sort of
[13:22] herman Bergson: the problem here is that facts are theory laden....
[13:22] BerwynBangarang: many facts are found not be facts. It was a "fact" that caucasians had larger brains that other races. Until independent verification was tried
[13:22] Mona Rives: facts are subject of interpretation
[13:22] herman Bergson: Indeed Mona....!
[13:23] Bejiita Imako: ah yes that can be, facts are believed to be true until proven otherwise u can say
[13:23] Bejiita Imako: and then are replaced with new facts
[13:23] Bejiita Imako: about same subject
[13:24] herman Bergson: we are lead by observation and experiment....
[13:24] Areyn Laurasia: If science is more about fact finding and truth more on how to interpret the facts base on personal and other bias..
[13:24] BerwynBangarang: but that does not meet our normal intuition about facts. it means that many propostions are incorrectly accepted as fact
[13:24] herman Bergson: Yes Areyn.....like these days with big data.....
[13:25] herman Bergson: big data don’t exist....interpretations exist...of observations
[13:25] Bejiita Imako: what is definition of big data really? the LHC spewing out billions of GB every second to analyse and similar things?
[13:26] BerwynBangarang: big data is just messy data that can only be analyzed statistically. surely the data exists
[13:26] Bejiita Imako: huge amount of information
[13:26] Areyn Laurasia: are numbers and figures not measured facts?
[13:26] BerwynBangarang: no
[13:26] herman Bergson: but there you already start interpreting by choosing your statistical methods....
[13:27] herman Bergson: setting your parameters for significance
[13:27] BerwynBangarang: yes, I agree. there are ineffective methods and there are often biases.
[13:28] herman Bergson: It is a somewhat confusing situation, it seems....
[13:28] Bejiita Imako: yes
[13:28] BerwynBangarang: yes, science is difficult
[13:28] herman Bergson: on the one hand we have the activity we call science....which comes up with real results....
[13:28] herman Bergson: and on the other hand....
[13:29] Mona Rives: the goal of science is to build the model of existing world
[13:29] herman Bergson: when you start digging for a justification you run into a lot of loose ends
[13:29] herman Bergson: That is one of the issues we discussed here Mona...
[13:30] herman Bergson: Just ask yourself HOW such a model relates to reality???
[13:30] herman Bergson: Or even in general....how our concepts and theories relate to reality
[13:30] herman Bergson: or how it is possible that mathematical calculations correspond with empirical findings
[13:31] Areyn Laurasia: Truth is no end point. It's a continuous journey of discovery, opening ourselves to new ideas, facts and possibilities.
[13:31] Bejiita Imako: it sure it
[13:31] Bejiita Imako: is
[13:31] herman Bergson: Yes Areyn.....but it leaves the door open for relativism....
[13:31] herman Bergson: the idea that anything goes in science
[13:32] herman Bergson: and that is conflicting with our intuition...
[13:32] herman Bergson: It is a fascinating scenery .....science
[13:33] Pretafox: cultural relativism can lead to the view there is no such thing as evil, based on what is acceptable in one culture vs. another. Something I personally would warn children about.
[13:33] BerwynBangarang: quantum mechanics is non intuitive
[13:33] Mona Rives: human observer is restricted in tools and abilities to build the abstract model
[13:33] herman Bergson: Yes Berwyn....I agree...
[13:34] Areyn Laurasia: A lot of discoveries were made by chance. If one starts of trying to be right, all those discoveries would not have been made. How can one know what is true or not if it's not tried?
[13:34] Areyn Laurasia: *off
[13:35] herman Bergson: That is what research intends to do, I would say
[13:35] Bejiita Imako: ah
[13:36] herman Bergson: As you see, in stead of answers we only run into more questions ^_^
[13:36] Bejiita Imako: it seems so
[13:36] herman Bergson: In some sense Kuhn is right....science is an activity of a social community thta believes in certain axioms
[13:37] herman Bergson: And what we call scientific theories appear to work in explaining reality and predicting things
[13:38] Areyn Laurasia: until we get to the quantum level
[13:38] BerwynBangarang: quantum mechanics is very predictable
[13:38] herman Bergson: Yes the Quantum argumant is rather popular.....
[13:38] Bejiita Imako: than it gets really complex
[13:38] herman Bergson: unfortunately I am not a specialist in that area  :-))
[13:39] BerwynBangarang: quantum mechanics is very predictable, but non intuitive. at least to me
[13:39] herman Bergson: Physical laws can be counter intuitive....
[13:40] herman Bergson: Take Newton's laws....
[13:40] herman Bergson: He says that an object is in rest when it moves at a constant speed....
[13:40] herman Bergson: We would be inclined to say it moves....
[13:40] Beertje Beaumont: / Jag älskar datorer
[13:40] Bejiita Imako:
[13:41] Beertje Beaumont: oops
[13:41] herman Bergson: and yet is natural laws are based on that idea...among other things
[13:41] Areyn Laurasia: :)
[13:41] BerwynBangarang: he would say it is in motion, but a constant motion
[13:41] herman Bergson: yes...but it is in rest
[13:41] Bejiita Imako: an object is at rest when no forces act on it sort of
[13:41] Bejiita Imako: to accelerate or decelerate it
[13:41] herman Bergson: exactly Bejiita...
[13:41] BerwynBangarang: it is in rest in a particular inertial frame
[13:42] Bejiita Imako: yes
[13:42] herman Bergson: Well I am no physist  but this idea I found rather interesting...
[13:43] herman Bergson: Well...I think I have tortured your brains enough for today :-))
[13:43] Bejiita Imako: hehe
[13:43] herman Bergson: Thank you for your participation again....
[13:43] herman Bergson: lol and there is Rodney....
[13:43] BerwynBangarang: it has been a pleasure
[13:43] Pretafox: thank you for the talk, herman
[13:43] Rodney Handrick: hey
[13:43] herman Bergson: Class dismissed :-)))
[13:43] Beertje Beaumont: thank you Herman
[13:44] Rodney Handrick: Well, I tried...
[13:44] Bejiita Imako: cu soon again all
[13:44] herman Bergson: Yes you did Rodney...appreciated ^_^
[13:44] BerwynBangarang: thank you for the talk Herman. I am grateful even if I disagreed from time to time
[13:44] Mona Rives: thank you Herman
[13:44] Mona Rives: bye everyone
[13:44] herman Bergson: It is good to disagree, Berwyn...
[13:45] Bejiita Imako: cu soon al
[13:45] Areyn Laurasia: bye Bejiita
[13:45] bergfrau Apfelbaum: byebye Bejiita
[13:45] BerwynBangarang: So do you see that I can be an Empiricist in a virtual world ;-)
[13:45] bergfrau Apfelbaum: ty herman & class and hi Rodney :-)
[13:45] herman Bergson: I  see you are here...:-)
[13:46] Areyn Laurasia: it's only a virtual medium :)
[13:46] BerwynBangarang: giggles
[13:46] Areyn Laurasia: but the ideas transcend both
[13:46] Beertje Beaumont: have a goodnight all...bye bye
[13:46] Areyn Laurasia: goodnight, Beertje
[13:47] BerwynBangarang: I would like to believe that Areyn
[13:47] BerwynBangarang: but I don't know to to find such ideas
[13:48] Areyn Laurasia: back to the hunt :)
[13:48] herman Bergson: oh yes...have fun Areyn
[13:48] BerwynBangarang: good bye herman
[13:48] Areyn Laurasia: Ty, bye everyone
[13:49] herman Bergson: Bye











554: Shifiting paradigms...

Science is not a monolithic something. Something we have to listen to, or obey. It is not the definite answer to questions.
.
Science better can be seen as a social process, the result of the interaction between human and environment.
.
As we already did , we can reconstruct the scientific proces by looking at Aristotle’s approach, logic and mathematics.
.
Many philosophers of science, however, came to believe that something vital is lost when science is reconstructed in the categories of formal logic. 
.
It seemed to them that the proposed orthodox analyses of ‘theory’, ‘confirmation’, and ‘reduction’ bear little resemblance to actual scientific practice.
.
Thomas Kuhn (1962) showed that scientific practice wasn’t that logical and methodological at all, but governed by paradigms.
.
Paradigms are a set of “natural” laws, theories, observations, methods, instruments which was adopted by a scientific community.
.
This, what he called “normal science” is actually  a rather conservative activity. It focused mainly in things like
.
increasing the precision of agreement between observations and calculations based on the paradigm and extending the scope of the paradigm to cover additional phenomena, among some other things.
.
The pursuit of normal science proceeds undisturbed so long as application of the paradigm satisfactorily explains the phenomena to which it is applied. 
.
But certain data may be resisting the standard paradigm. If scientists believe that the paradigm yet should fit the data in question, then confidence in the paradigm may be shaken. 
.
The type of phenomena described by the data is then regarded as an anomaly. According to Kuhn,  it is the occurrence of anomalies that provides the stimulus for the invention of alternative paradigms.
.
Competing paradigms are incommensurable, that is, can not be judged by the same standard. They reflect divergent conceptual orientations. 
.
Proponents of competing paradigms see certain types of phenomena in different ways, like one group sees light as particles, while the other group sees light as waves.
.
The presence of an anomaly or two is not sufficient to cause abandonment of a paradigm. Kuhn maintained that a logic of falsification is not applicable to the case of paradigm rejection.
.
A paradigm is not rejected on the basis of a comparison of its consequences and empirical evidence. 
.
Rather paradigm rejection is a three-term relation which involves an established paradigm, a rival paradigm, and the observational evidence.
.
For example, in the Cartesian tradition, to ask what forces are acting on a body is to ask for a specification of those other bodies that are exerting pressure on that body. 
.
But in the Newtonian tradition, one may answer the question about forces without discussing action-by-contact. It suffices to specify an appropriate mathematical function.
.
In addition, although a new paradigm usually incorporates concepts drawn from the old paradigm, these borrowed concepts often are used in novel ways. 
.
For instance, in the transition from Newtonian physics to General Relativity the terms ‘space’, ‘time’, and ‘matter’ undergo a far-reaching reinterpretation.
.
When you think of my statement that science is right and that Kuhn’s position on paradigm-replacement seems to reduce the history of science to a mere succession of viewpoints,
.
you might wonder whether there really is a “being right” or do we face here relativism?
.
Thank you….if you have any questions or remarks, the floor is yours.. ^_^


The Discussion

[13:21] Corona Anatine: well it does subsume uniformitarianism
[13:21] Tama Ahn: science isn’t about being right right?
[13:21] Ciska Riverstone: thank you herman
[13:21] Corona Anatine: if the observed universe undergoes change then there will be a paradigm shift
[13:21] Corona Anatine: yes and no, Tama
[13:22] Corona Anatine: its about being right 0 but
[13:22] herman Bergson: Whether science is about being right or not , is the real question indeed Tama...
[13:22] Corona Anatine: science also defines what is right
[13:22] Gemma Cleanslate: and as we learn new information the paradigm would have to change
[13:22] herman Bergson: It is about the relation of our knowledge to reality...
[13:22] Tama Ahn: science is about exploring not about being right ideally.. doesn't make sense to set up that dichotomy
[13:23] Gemma Cleanslate: well actually I hope it is right sometimes
[13:23] Corona Anatine: but the quetions asked of reality have to be framed within the existing paradigm
[13:23] Gemma Cleanslate: it had better be right in some instances
[13:23] herman Bergson: Yes...you might say that science is a n ever increasing probability....
[13:23] Corona Anatine: one has to ask the right questions of the data
[13:23] Gemma Cleanslate: yes
[13:24] herman Bergson: the point regarding these paradigms is....
[13:24] herman Bergson: for instance measurement instruments....
[13:24] Corona Anatine: the problem with any science is that we dont know what we have not yet discovered
[13:24] Corona Anatine: and that might be vast or small
[13:24] Gemma Cleanslate: so true
[13:25] herman Bergson: they are all defined within the borders of some  theories
[13:25] Corona Anatine: partially depending on which field of research
[13:25] Corona Anatine: have to be
[13:25] herman Bergson: Take CERN….(Bejiita would jump here:-)
[13:25] Tama Ahn: but the black and white idea of being either "right" or there would be "relativism" isn’t worth much.. since the aim is to grow understanding.. not "being right" nor being relativist
[13:25] Corona Anatine: because a theory has been tested agians t reality
[13:26] herman Bergson: It searches only for particles which logically are deduced from the existing paradigm on physics
[13:26] Corona Anatine: of course
[13:26] Corona Anatine: ones that are illogical would not be sought
[13:26] Corona Anatine: its only when such appear that the paradigm shifts
[13:27] herman Bergson: I agree Tama but it still touches an old problem....
[13:27] herman Bergson: Originating from Aristotle actually
[13:27] Tama Ahn: think thats undermining the human exploration .. to think the driving force would be logic
[13:28] Corona Anatine: yes especially as some areas of leading edge physics defy logic
[13:28] Gemma Cleanslate: wonders what Aristotle would think if he were alive now
[13:28] herman Bergson: Aristotle looks at reality as a teleological reality.....
[13:28] ZANICIA Chau: define logic
[13:28] Jangle McElroy: The scientists I've met never seem to talk about absolutes, unless they are physicists.  The others seem to say things like "What we know so far." or "What we believe is probably happening." rather than the Physicists; who seem to make more absolute. They like laws, e=mc2 etc.
[13:28] ZANICIA Chau: how true
[13:29] Gemma Cleanslate: smart!
[13:29] Corona Anatine: poss because physics is closely allied to maths
[13:29] herman Bergson: That is what I mean....
[13:29] Corona Anatine: and like maths deals with things that cant be seen
[13:29] herman Bergson: the teleological character  of the enterprise Science....
[13:29] herman Bergson: Does it lead to something....
[13:29] Tama Ahn: even physicist will agree there are limits to their/our understanding
[13:29] Lizzy Pleides: you got it Jangle
[13:30] herman Bergson: Yes I agree Jangle....
[13:30] herman Bergson: as I said...science is just an increasing probability
[13:30] Corona Anatine: before we move to far from 1338 herman
[13:30] Corona Anatine: want to ask
[13:30] Corona Anatine: [13:13] .: Science better can be seen as a social process, the result of the interaction between human and environment.
[13:30] herman Bergson: But an astronomer would say...No!...there WAS the Big Bang...period....
[13:30] ZANICIA Chau: shall we say...evolving probability?
[13:31] Corona Anatine: what did you mean by social interaction with the environment
[13:31] herman Bergson: yes Zan...ok
[13:31] Gemma Cleanslate: sounds good
[13:31] herman Bergson: And if seen evolutionary.....like evolution...in an arbitrary direction
[13:31] Corona Anatine: some astronomers might but there was no big bang - there IS a big bang
[13:32] ZANICIA Chau: is?
[13:32] herman Bergson: To me the Big Bang theory is just a mental construct
[13:32] Corona Anatine: yes its is a ongoing process not an event that happen in the past
[13:32] herman Bergson: useful paradigm to explain things
[13:32] Corona Anatine: hmm
[13:32] Jangle McElroy: Science has a habit of creating paradigms that are measurable and describable with constants in very rational ways.  I'm interested in behavioral science that is driven by emotions, which aren't always rational and don't always conform to logical paradigms.
[13:32] herman Bergson: epistemologically I find it nonsense
[13:33] Corona Anatine: why so
[13:33] Tama Ahn: well there is evidence for it
[13:33] Corona Anatine: good evidence too
[13:33] ZANICIA Chau: no there isn't
[13:33] herman Bergson: there is evidence for it within the theories of the paradigm ....
[13:33] Corona Anatine: you don’t consider red shift goo devidence?
[13:33] ZANICIA Chau: theories, yes
[13:33] Tama Ahn: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inflation_(cosmology)
[13:34] Tama Ahn: there is some
[13:34] ZANICIA Chau: no not at all
[13:34] herman Bergson: But there is no answer to the question where the Big Banfg took place....within the theory the question is even nonsense
[13:34] Corona Anatine: yes i see what you are saying Herman -within the paradigm
[13:34] Corona Anatine: it has no where
[13:34] Corona Anatine: because it is expanding at all points
[13:35] Jangle McElroy: no obvious ground zero within 3 dimensional space.
[13:35] herman Bergson: It is something we can not understand within out space - time perception of reality
[13:35] Corona Anatine: in effect space is expanding u but the matter withion it is held by gravity
[13:35] Tama Ahn: indeed herman.. they cant go inside black hole not to the state before the big bang but the theory of the big bang as the black hole has empirical backings
[13:35] Tama Ahn: nor*
[13:35] Corona Anatine: except its not 3d space its 4d spacetime
[13:36] Jangle McElroy: indeed
[13:36] herman Bergson: Well...
[13:36] Ciska Riverstone: or 5 with what we experience as emotion as the 5th ;)
[13:36] herman Bergson: actually this is a nice example of a paradigm of astronomy.....
[13:36] Corona Anatine: that is just clouding the isse ciska
[13:36] herman Bergson: Mathematically they even calculate with 11 dimensions....
[13:36] Corona Anatine: well yes there was Fred Hoyles idea
[13:37] Corona Anatine: or 26
[13:37] Gemma Cleanslate: amazing stuff
[13:37] Corona Anatine: but most are wrapped up within sub atomic particles
[13:37] herman Bergson: Yes Gemma..way beyond my understanding of reality :-))
[13:38] Jangle McElroy: My reality pretty much stops after Puligny Montrachet and movies.
[13:38] Lizzy Pleides: our brain seems not to be able to imagine more than 3 dimensions
[13:38] Corona Anatine: the think to remember is that each sub atomic particle has the potential for its own big bang expansion
[13:38] herman Bergson: That is my problem too Lizzy ^_^
[13:38] ZANICIA Chau: giggles
[13:38] herman Bergson: Not to talk about Kant's Ding an sich
[13:39] Corona Anatine: except you do Lizzy -unless you are saying you have no memories of the past
[13:39] Lizzy Pleides: we have something in common herman :-))
[13:39] herman Bergson: The idea that we only know our perception.....not what caused our perceptions
[13:40] Jangle McElroy: I'd argue we don't know our perception very well. an example being how eye witness reports always fail to tell exactly what happened, who was there, details change etc.
[13:40] herman Bergson: Still fundamental philosophical issues...
[13:40] Tama Ahn: but some things are more pushy about being perceived
[13:40] Tama Ahn: hehe
[13:40] ZANICIA Chau: true
[13:40] herman Bergson: oh yes Tama.....
[13:41] herman Bergson: We have to accept that there is a reality independent of our consciousness
[13:41] ZANICIA Chau: yes
[13:41] Tama Ahn: so then there might be things other than our perception since they are so pushy
[13:41] Tama Ahn: hehe
[13:41] Corona Anatine: of course - we don’t perceive everything
[13:41] Tama Ahn: sure
[13:41] Tama Ahn: so we invent tools
[13:41] Tama Ahn: to do it for us
[13:41] Corona Anatine: i think its less than 1/000 of the while em spectrum
[13:42] herman Bergson: In fact you should say that we constantly seem to have the same experiences in certain identiccal situations Tama
[13:42] Corona Anatine: yes - for example there are no square atoms
[13:42] herman Bergson: which leads to the increasing  assumption , we can not escape it...:-)
[13:43] Corona Anatine: well escape from experience is easy
[13:43] Lizzy Pleides: are you sure Corona?
[13:43] Corona Anatine: just not one we want
[13:43] Corona Anatine: oh yes death is escape from experience
[[13:43] Corona Anatine: unless you follow some religions
[13:43] Tama Ahn: well yeh its not a choice to create our own reality.. but science kinda helps understanding more about universal categories
[13:44] Corona Anatine: such as judaism with its concept of reincarnation
[13:44] herman Bergson: I think this leads to another discussion Corona....not now plz
[13:44] Tama Ahn: not personal .. and trying to go past the social
[13:44] Corona Anatine: kk
[13:44] Corona Anatine: it is heading off track i admit
[13:44] Gemma Cleanslate: :-)
[13:44] herman Bergson: Anyway....
[13:45] herman Bergson: science is caught inside its own sets of theories and so on....
[13:45] herman Bergson: thinking outside the box creates problems with those....
[13:45] Corona Anatine: is 'caught ' the right word?
[13:45] herman Bergson: but when this thinking outside the box gets stronger....a scientific "revolution" seems to take place...
[13:45] herman Bergson: a paradigm shift
[13:45] Corona Anatine: because science does permit of theory change and paradigm shift
[13:46] herman Bergson: Next time we might have a closer look of this idea of "revolution"
[13:46] Jangle McElroy: Possibly in part because we crave order and simplicity and expected outcomes. If we admitted to the chaos that surrounds our lives, it would be troubling.
[13:47] herman Bergson: and another issue is...."what is science heading for..?"
[13:47] Tama Ahn: pseudoscience hides behind those same words tho.. ideally science is very open to scrutiny
[13:47] Gemma Cleanslate: ok
[13:47] Corona Anatine: or herman might have a paradigm shift and talk about something else instead
[13:47] Tama Ahn: this is like pretending it isn't
[13:47] Tama Ahn: while it is
[13:47] Gemma Cleanslate: ♥ LOL ♥
[13:47] Gemma Cleanslate: rosie we meet every
[13:47] herman Bergson: Science should be open minded Tama...
[13:47] Gemma Cleanslate: tuesday and Thursday
[13:48] Gemma Cleanslate: and all the past classes are in the blog if you would like to check it
[13:48] Ciska Riverstone: but scientists are not necessarily all ;)
[13:48] Tama Ahn: yeh what else would scrutiny mean?
[13:48] Tama Ahn: thats part of it
[13:48] herman Bergson smiles
[13:48] herman Bergson: Guess we agree :-)
[13:48] Gemma Cleanslate: true
[13:49] herman Bergson: You got enough to ponder about for the coming weekend I guess.....
[13:49] ZANICIA Chau: Thank you Herman
[13:49] herman Bergson: So…thank you all for your motivation participation again....
[13:49] Corona Anatine: thank you Herman
[13:49] herman Bergson: Class dismissed....^_^
[13:49] Ciska Riverstone: thanx herman thanx everyone
[13:49] Beertje Beaumont: thank you Herman
[13:49] Tama Ahn: time for beer :D
[13:49] Gemma Cleanslate: ♥ Thank Youuuuuuuuuu!! ♥
[13:49] Tama Ahn: yay
[13:49] Lizzy Pleides: Thank you herman!
[13:50] herman Bergson: I agree again Tama :-)
[13:50] Ciska Riverstone: sleep well or good day folks


553: The Structure of Scientific Revolutions

Till now we have focused on the methods of science, logic, mathematics. We get a different story when we take a closer look at the content of science.
.
Then we don’t see logic and reason at work, but we see man at work, the individual that associates  his achievements not only with the increase of knowledge,
.
but also with his Ego, prestige and status. Today a first look at it thus, based on the ideas of Thomas Kuhn’s “The Structure of Scientific Revolutions” (1962).
.
He speaks of  'normal science’, meaning research firmly based on one or more past scientific achievements,
.
achievements by a particular scientific community that recognizes these for a long  time as a basis for its work.
.
Nowadays such achievements are listed in textbooks for beginners and advanced. These textbooks explain the essentials of the accepted theories,
.
explain their successful applications and illustrate them with relevant observations and experiments. Such books became popular in the early nineteenth century.
.
Before that Aristotle's “Physica”, Ptolemy's “Almagest”, Newton's “Principia” and “Opticks”, Franklin's “Electricity,” Lavoisier's “Traite élémentaire chimie” and Lyell's “Geology” served this function.
.
These books implicitly determined what were authorized problems and methods for successive generations of practitioners of a particular science.
.
They were able to do so, because they had two essential characteristics in common. Their performance
was sufficiently unprecedented 
.
to have a stable group of supporters kept away from competing modes of scientific activity. 
.
At the same time there remained all kinds problems enough to the group of researchers to solve them.
.
Achievements like this, Kuhn calls 'paradigms'. Existing scientific work - examples of laws, theories, applications and tools - create models for particular coherent traditions.
.
These are the traditions which historically can be describes as 'Ptolemaic' or "Copernican astronomy ',' Aristotelian 'or' Newtonian dynamics, "" particulate "or" wave optics ", etc. 
.
Historically interesting is here, that such a paradigm defined what were meaningful experiments and research and what was, so to speak, “not done’ in science.
.
For instance regarding the question, what is light? Is it waves or is it particles? Depending on what the scientific community supports, it tells what experiments are meaningful and which are not.
.
The most interesting observation here is, that after centuries of development the human mind shifted to the idea that there had to be one scientific truth only.
.
However,  no period between antiquity and the end of the seventeenth century inaugurated a generally accepted view about the nature of the light. 
.
Instead, there were a number of competing schools, which usually adhered some variant of the theories of Epicurus, Aristotle or Plato. 
.
One group took that lights consisted of particles from material bodies; for another, it was a change in the medium, which was located between body and eye; 
.
yet another one saw light in terms of an interaction between the body and something that comes from the eye
.
Thus science is controlled by the community of scientists, who adhere to a certain paradigm, a set of theories, laws and explanations.
.
Next question will be….how do these paradigms change and get overrun by a scientific revolution?
.
Thank you…. the floor is yours :-))


Main Sources:
MacMillan The Encyclopedia of Philosophy, 2nd edition
Routledge Encyclopedia of Philosophy, 1995
A Historical Introduction to the Philosophy of Science, John Losee (2001)

The Structure of Scientific Revolutions, T. Kuhn (1962)


The Discussion 

[13:19] Roger Amdahl: well thanks Herman ... that is quite a question you leave us with
[13:19] Bejiita Imako: for sure
[13:19] Corona Anatine: well paradigm shift usually occurs when there are competing theories and one proves to be a better fit
[13:19] Beertje Beaumont: as always
[13:19] Bejiita Imako: ah
[13:19] herman Bergson: I'll dig into it and help you answer it Roger :-)
[13:19] Roger Amdahl: those paradigms are overruled by the one experiment that does not fit into their theories
[13:19] Corona Anatine: or when a new discovery undermines exisitng ideas
[13:19] Bejiita Imako: yes
[13:20] Corona Anatine: and it gains ground in the scientific community
[13:20] herman Bergson: Most important point today is that science is not primarily defined by its method, but by a paradigm....
[13:20] Corona Anatine: the false idea is to think of it as a single cmmunity
[13:20] herman Bergson: a view supported by a scientific community
[13:20] Corona Anatine: like religion there wil be competing schism
[13:20] druth Vlodovic: so is the experiment the deciding factor, or does it tend to be more about convincing personalities in the field?
[13:20] herman Bergson: if it were there never would change a thing Corona :-)
[13:21] Roger Amdahl: you can't blame a theoretical physicist have to deal with paradigms ...
[13:21] Corona Anatine: yes it would become dogma Herman
[13:21] herman Bergson: Well Druth....the later is a serious issue indeed
[13:21] Corona Anatine: personalities help to an extent
[13:22] Corona Anatine: but the process of peer review does perhaps help in this
[13:22] Corona Anatine: although such wil also of course reinfcre the exisitnign paradigm
[13:22] druth Vlodovic: scientists are humans who have put a fair amount of work into their current ideas,you have to expect some pushback,the difference with religion is that science has a moral of accepting overwhelming evidence
[13:22] herman Bergson: A nice sidetrack here is fraude in Science...:-))
[13:22] Roger Amdahl: in science everything is true, until proven wrong ... isn't that beautiful ?
[13:22] Corona Anatine: oh fraud is definitely a personality thing
[13:22] Bejiita Imako:
[13:23] herman Bergson: Yes Druth....that is what makes progress possible
[13:23] Bejiita Imako: there are lot of fraud nowadays it seems, "scientists" scaring us that everything we eat are deadly so they can sell their own ideas
[13:24] herman Bergson: Yes Bejiita.....
[13:24] Bejiita Imako: see it in paper every day almost a new such case
[13:24] Corona Anatine: [fetches Mary Midgely -evolution as a religion from her bookshelf
[13:24] herman Bergson: as soon as something becomes a money issue this happens....
[13:24] Bejiita Imako: latest is that eco farming would not sustain us and not absorb carbon dioxide and bla bla
[13:24] herman Bergson: Ahh Mary Midgley..
[13:25] Roger Amdahl: where is humans, there is fraud, thiefs, robbery ... 90% of science goes for the evidence ..and is true about it
[13:25] Corona Anatine: well yes - science is study of experimental data
[13:25] druth Vlodovic: that is more economics than science
[13:25] Corona Anatine: and of course there will always be a certain selectivity of choice in what is studied where and what quations are asked etc
[13:26] herman Bergson: Yes Corona....that is governed by the leadin paradigm...
[13:26] Bejiita Imako: however science is also somewhat hindered
[13:27] herman Bergson: so...how does a paradigm get dropped ...exchanged for another one...
[13:27] herman Bergson: that is our next question
[13:27] Corona Anatine: plus in the case of studies with corporate interests there will be pressure and - who idea gets more funding
[13:27] Bejiita Imako: take this Rossi guy, he under no circumstances want to reveal how his energy machine works, it does but how
[13:27] Bejiita Imako: and thus all say he is just a bluff
[13:27] Bejiita Imako: and Rossi prevents further fast development cause of greed i guess
[13:28] Bejiita Imako: instead of helping actually using this machine to solve energy crisis
[13:28] druth Vlodovic: what have you found in your career in your field Herman, does it tend to be more open minded, or more personality driven?
[13:28] herman Bergson: Who is Rossi, Bejiita....never heard of:-)
[13:28] Corona Anatine: it appears to happen when a new idea is taken up by increasing numbers of other scientists - such as for example plate tectonics
[13:28] Bejiita Imako: he developed some sort of reactor that produce lot of energy 
[13:28] Bejiita Imako: he just want money and all think its some sort of advanced bluff
[13:28] Corona Anatine: that sounds like the scientific equivalent of joseph smith
[13:29] Roger Amdahl: if he wait for a patent .. I understand .. else it is not done to keep science to yourself
[13:29] Bejiita Imako: would be better he revealed it , if it actually worked could solve energy crisis
[13:29] Bejiita Imako: instead of hiding it away
[13:29] Bejiita Imako: might be
[13:29] druth Vlodovic: "pay no attention to the extension cord attached to the back of the device."
[13:30] herman Bergson: sounds like a lot of bogus, Bejiita...
[13:30] Bejiita Imako: but al scientists everywhere want to check how itworks
[13:30] herman Bergson: And to answer Druth....
[13:30] Bejiita Imako: cause it indeed produce as much power as a nuclear reactor without nuclear reaction
[13:30] Bejiita Imako: its like cold fusion
[13:30] Bejiita Imako: he might have invented it or its all bluff,
[13:30] Bejiita Imako: no one knows
[13:31] herman Bergson: What I experienced in my carreer was a colleague who was terribly jealous of my achievemnts and has tried everything to shuffle me under
[13:31] Bejiita Imako: as said it seem to work
[13:31] herman Bergson: and with it he blocked a lot of positive developments
[13:31] Bejiita Imako: its called the E Cat
[13:31] Bejiita Imako: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Energy_Catalyzer
[13:32] Bejiita Imako: his machine
[13:32] Roger Amdahl: if it is nuclear power invented in the backyard of his home , he should glow in the dark ... and fusion ... pff... get real ... not possible he invented that in his backyard ... so I go for bogus
[13:32] Corona Anatine: but that is a personal politics thing Herman - does it relate to paradigm shifting ?
[13:33] herman Bergson: lol ...no Corona....I never formul;ated a paradigm for a field of science...Einstein did :-)
[13:33] herman Bergson: And I am no Einstein ^_^
[13:33] Bejiita Imako:
[13:33] Corona Anatine: not many are
[13:33] Bejiita Imako: aaaa come on now mr E = mc2
[13:33] Bejiita Imako: lol
[13:33] Bejiita Imako:
[13:33] Bejiita Imako: Einstein was special indeed
[13:33] Bejiita Imako: ahead of his time
[13:34] Bejiita Imako: but he was right
[13:34] Corona Anatine: oh yes
[13:34] Corona Anatine: no in everything
[13:34] Corona Anatine: he had problems with quantum theory
[13:34] Corona Anatine: but then so do many modern thinkers
[13:34] herman Bergson: Bejiita it is really brilliant to be able to say that einstein was right ^_^
[13:34] Bejiita Imako: hmm but can ANYONE understand that?
[13:34] Bejiita Imako: hehe
[13:34] Roger Amdahl: no Einstein was just a weirdo in his own era ... a very brilliant weirdo for sure,
[13:34] Bejiita Imako: quantum physics is even trickier then relativity theory
[13:35] Corona Anatine: it depends what you mean by 'understand'
[13:35] herman Bergson: Well..I think the point of today is clear....:-)
[13:35] Roger Amdahl: relativity is relatively simple, while quantum physics is quite predictable ...
[13:35] herman Bergson: Science is a social activity of a group of people....
[13:36] Corona Anatine: the thing to remember about quantum is that it is about vibrational wavelengths
[13:36] Bejiita Imako: string theory
[13:36] Corona Anatine: in what medium is a good question
[13:36] herman Bergson: That group takes control...their point of view is aparadigm...
[13:36] Corona Anatine: but at a basic level it is about moving fields
[13:36] Roger Amdahl: 10 spacial dimensions is enough medium ?
[13:36] Corona Anatine: indeed so herman
[13:37] Corona Anatine: might be more some say 26 dimensions
[13:37] Roger Amdahl: eeps
[13:37] herman Bergson: And please stop about quantum physics and string theory.....
[13:37] Corona Anatine: kk
[13:37] herman Bergson: completely irrelevant here :-))
[13:37] Bejiita Imako:
[13:37] Corona Anatine: yeah stick with the established paradigm
[13:38] Roger Amdahl: deal with the paradigm you earlier described, Herman :) ... quantum rocks !!!
[13:38] herman Bergson: I always get the feeling that if someone doesn’t know the right answer anymore he refers to quantum physics as the example of....bla bla :-)
[13:38] Roger Amdahl: *smiles
[13:38] Bejiita Imako: ehe
[13:38] Corona Anatine: yes it does but it disputs paradigms cos it allows all side to be right at the same time
[13:38] herman Bergson: Yes Roger it rocks indeed ^_^
[13:39] herman Bergson: Ok...we'll get to that issue in future lectures :-)
[13:39] herman Bergson: For today...thank you all again for your participation:-)
[13:39] herman Bergson: Class dismissed ...^_^
[13:40] Corona Anatine: a small question -does religion with god behind everything count as a separate paradigm?
[[13:40] druth Vlodovic: I'm not sure this relates directly to science as a social activity,but the page on the energy catalyzer suggests you can't get as patent on something that doesn't work
[13:40] Corona Anatine: one would hope not
[13:40] druth Vlodovic: that can't be true or new things would be very hard to make money from
[13:40] bergfrau Apfelbaum: ty herman & class!
[13:40] Corona Anatine: otherwise you could patent alien death rays made of wood
[13:41] Bejiita Imako: if he want to et some luck with e cat he beter show that his device really work and how, scintific organisations dont grant bogus patents
[13:41] druth Vlodovic: well,why not? that would just prevent other people from making alien death rays made of wood in the same design as yours
[13:41] herman Bergson: Who is this Rossi, Bejiita....what nationality?
[13:41] Corona Anatine: ones with any credibility anyway
[13:41] herman Bergson: Where does he work?
[13:41] Bejiita Imako: Italian
[13:41] Corona Anatine: sounds italian
[13:42] Bejiita Imako: Andrea Rossi
[13:42] druth Vlodovic: I thought the patent office was a political/government thing,rather than scientific organization
[13:42] herman Bergson: In Peyton Place there also was a doctor Rossi...:-)
[13:42] Corona Anatine: it is a gov funded body yes
[13:42] Beertje Beaumont: lol..you said it a sec earlier than I
[13:42] Bejiita Imako: ok
[13:42] Roger Amdahl: Peyton Place ...?? Herman , you're old !
[13:42] Corona Anatine: does not mean it is gov influenced by political thought
[13:42] herman Bergson: 65
[13:43] Roger Amdahl: LOL
[13:43] Beertje Beaumont: omg 65!
[13:43] Bejiita Imako:
[13:43] Beertje Beaumont: jeez
[13:43] Corona Anatine: you couldn’t tell from his avi?
[13:43] Corona Anatine: not that old
[13:43] herman Bergson: so young enough to have seen Peyton Place in black and white
[13:43] Corona Anatine: 65 is not old
[13:43] Roger Amdahl: :)
[13:44] herman Bergson: it is a number Corona...that is all :-)
[13:44] druth Vlodovic: lol
[13:44] Beertje Beaumont: all old man say that...
[13:44] Corona Anatine: yes -age is a state of mind
[13:44] herman Bergson: I'll talk to you later Beertje ^_^

[13:44] Beertje Beaumont: grins..