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.. ^_^
[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 ㋡