| Author |
Message
|
| coberst |
 Posted: Thu Jul 17, 2008 1:31 pm Post subject: Paradigm: A Criterion for Choosing Problems |
 |
|
Forum Senior
Joined: 18 Feb 2007
Posts: 391
|
Paradigm: A Criterion for Choosing Problems
I graduated in 1959 as an electronics engineer. I had been taught how to use math to solve engineering problems. I was taught how to do math but never taught what math and science was really about. After reading Thomas Kuhnâs book âThe Structure of Scientific Revolutionsâ several years ago I began to understand the ways of math and the ways of solving problems in the natural sciences.
Normal science is a puzzle-solving enterprise. Normal science is a slow accumulation of knowledge by a methodical step-by-step process undertaken by a group of scientists.
âOne of the things a scientific community acquires with a paradigm is a criterion for choosing problems that, while the paradigm is taken for granted, can be assumed to have solutionsâŠA paradigm can, for that matter, even insulate the community from those socially important problems that are not reducible to the puzzle form, because they cannot be stated in terms of the conceptual and instrumental tools the paradigm supplies.â
The author notes that all âreal science is normally a habit-governed, puzzle-solving activityâ and not a philosophical activity. Paradigm and not hypothesis is the active meaning for the ânew image of scienceâ. Paradigm is neither a theory nor a metaphysical viewpoint.
Kuhnâs new image of scienceâthe paradigmâis an artifact (a human achievement), a way of seeing, and is a set of scientific problem solving habits. Normal science means research based upon one or more past achievements âthat some particular community acknowledges for a time as supplying the foundation for its further practiceâŠand these achievements are sufficiently unprecedented to attract an enduring group pf adherents away from competing modes of scientific activityâ furthermore they are sufficiently open-ended to leave all sorts of problems for the redefined group of practitioners to solveâ. Such achievements Kuhn defines as paradigm.
âA puzzle-solving paradigm, unlike a puzzle-solving hypothetico-deductive system, has also got to be a concrete âway of seeingâ.â
Kuhn constantly refers to the âgestalt switchâ when discussing the switch in reference from one paradigm to another as âre-seeingâ action. Each paradigm has been constructed to be a âway-of-seeingâ. Here Kuhn is speaking not about what the paradigm is but how the paradigm is used. He is defining a paradigm as a newly developed puzzle-solving artifact that is used analogically to understand another artifact; for example, using wire and beads strung together to facilitate understanding the protein molecule.
I think that we place âScienceâ on too high a pedestal and thereby distort our comprehension of political and social problems. We cannot solve social and political problems like we solve the questions formed by the normal sciences.
Do you think that we place Science on too high a pedestal? |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
| marnixR |
| Posted: Thu Jul 17, 2008 2:32 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Forum Cosmic Wizard
Joined: 10 Apr 2007
Posts: 2398
Location: Cardiff, Wales
|
science is good at solving scientific problems - political and social problems require a political and social solution
science may be of assistance in bringing these solutions about, but a solution needs to match the nature of the problem to be effective
_________________
if you find this place too crowded or too confrontational, how about trying Philosophorum,
the amicable forum where small is beautiful and even the trolls are intelligent
biology without evolution is but stamp collecting |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| coberst |
| Posted: Fri Jul 18, 2008 3:43 am Post subject: |
|
|
Forum Senior
Joined: 18 Feb 2007
Posts: 391
|
| marnixR wrote: |
science is good at solving scientific problems - political and social problems require a political and social solution
science may be of assistance in bringing these solutions about, but a solution needs to match the nature of the problem to be effective |
Could we come up with a definition of the word "science" that is acceptable to most of us?
I think that we have the common meaning of the word "science", which is equivalent to either "physics", "natural science", or to "technology".
I think of that "science" means a domain of knowledge that meets some ridged standards of methodology and seeks to establish principles that can serve as stepping stones for reaching further into a depth of understanding about that domain of knowledge. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| marnixR |
| Posted: Fri Jul 18, 2008 9:31 am Post subject: |
|
|
Forum Cosmic Wizard
Joined: 10 Apr 2007
Posts: 2398
Location: Cardiff, Wales
|
i see science as any activity of gathering, investigating and evaluating knowledge that follows the scientific method of hypothesis, proposed consequences and testable predictions
_________________
if you find this place too crowded or too confrontational, how about trying Philosophorum,
the amicable forum where small is beautiful and even the trolls are intelligent
biology without evolution is but stamp collecting |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| organic god |
| Posted: Fri Jul 18, 2008 11:31 am Post subject: |
|
|
Forum Sophomore
Joined: 06 Feb 2008
Posts: 160
Location: The Pro Chair
|
| Quote: |
| testable predictions |
a lot of what i consider scientific work is not testable however does this mean it is not science?
we can produce theories on what is inside a black hole but it is not testable by any methods we have today. however i would still consider theoretical astrophysics a sceince
_________________
everything is mathematical. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| marnixR |
| Posted: Fri Jul 18, 2008 2:43 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Forum Cosmic Wizard
Joined: 10 Apr 2007
Posts: 2398
Location: Cardiff, Wales
|
it still makes predictions, and if they are currently not testable, good predictions inherently imply that there is a fair chance that at some point in the future evidence will emergethat agrees or contradicts the predictions
as for black holes, the fact that this field of physics has been very fruitful in creating a whole new area at the edge of physics, still exploratory at the moment, but full of potential for confirmation or refutation
can you hand on heart say that attempts to explain the workings of black holes have not led to a random offshoot that has proved useful elsewhere ? that in itself is an indication of the power of the scientific method
_________________
if you find this place too crowded or too confrontational, how about trying Philosophorum,
the amicable forum where small is beautiful and even the trolls are intelligent
biology without evolution is but stamp collecting |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| coberst |
| Posted: Sat Jul 19, 2008 3:16 am Post subject: |
|
|
Forum Senior
Joined: 18 Feb 2007
Posts: 391
|
| marnixR wrote: |
| i see science as any activity of gathering, investigating and evaluating knowledge that follows the scientific method of hypothesis, proposed consequences and testable predictions |
I think that we must then define "testable" in a fashion that does not mean measuring with some kind of physical standard such as ruler or clock or weighing scale. Of couse we get into a circular argument when we define "science" as something that uses the "scientific method". |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| marnixR |
| Posted: Sat Jul 19, 2008 5:34 am Post subject: |
|
|
Forum Cosmic Wizard
Joined: 10 Apr 2007
Posts: 2398
Location: Cardiff, Wales
|
| coberst wrote: |
| marnixR wrote: |
| i see science as any activity of gathering, investigating and evaluating knowledge that follows the scientific method of hypothesis, proposed consequences and testable predictions |
I think that we must then define "testable" in a fashion that does not mean measuring with some kind of physical standard such as ruler or clock or weighing scale. Of couse we get into a circular argument when we define "science" as something that uses the "scientific method". |
no you don't : the set of hypothesis, proposed consequences and testable predictions (as in deciding whether is true or false, not necessarily physical testing) IS the scientific method - no circularity here at all
_________________
if you find this place too crowded or too confrontational, how about trying Philosophorum,
the amicable forum where small is beautiful and even the trolls are intelligent
biology without evolution is but stamp collecting |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| wienertakesall |
| Posted: Tue Jul 22, 2008 10:41 am Post subject: |
|
|
Forum Freshman
Joined: 30 Jun 2008
Posts: 38
Location: Poland
|
| coberst wrote: |
| marnixR wrote: |
science is good at solving scientific problems - political and social problems require a political and social solution
science may be of assistance in bringing these solutions about, but a solution needs to match the nature of the problem to be effective |
Could we come up with a definition of the word "science" that is acceptable to most of us?
. |
That is correct according to me. Science is some process that responds to problem. Be it problem of sociological or human problems. You cannot see science as ust closed to such meanings as physics or biology. Perthaps it is politicians that are scientists solving sociological and political problems. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
