Skip to main content

View Diary: Pique the Geek 20110605: Misconceptions about Science (112 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  Thanks! (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Azazello, palantir, ninkasi23

    I shall try to root out a copy soon.

    Warmest regards,

    Doc

    Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice, shame on me. Fool me over and over, then either I really love you blindly or I am a Republican.

    by Translator on Sun Jun 05, 2011 at 07:10:15 PM PDT

    [ Parent ]

    •  What he argues is that (4+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Translator, palantir, ninkasi23, semiot

      science does not proceed from an initial discovery that is then elaborated on and expanded over time. Instead, a long established line of inquiry is often abandoned in a scientific revolution or paradigm shift, a new way of looking at the problem. Nowhere does he claim that observation and repeatable experimentation have been superseded. There still is a scientific method it just moves differently, in violent fits and starts rather than smooth progress. You hear he same argument about how evolution works.

      ¡Viva Baja Libre!

      by Azazello on Sun Jun 05, 2011 at 07:20:24 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  Well, of course it does! (6+ / 0-)

        His "paradigm shift" is nothing more than old theories being thrown out because of new facts.  Here is a case in point:

        The ultraviolet catastrophe.   Planck looked at the classical literature to explain why a blackbody radiator behaved at it does, and found that classical theory did not explain the actual, and documented facts.

        He threw out classical theory and came up with something that fit the observed facts.  That was a "paradigm change" in that classical theory had to be discarded, but it was a direct result of using the scientific method, experimentation, hypotheses, theories, and more experiments to confirm the theory.

        This is not any different than the classical scientific method, but rather just uses different words to describe it.  The "new paradigm" is nothing but a better model!

        Warmest regards,

        Doc

        Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice, shame on me. Fool me over and over, then either I really love you blindly or I am a Republican.

        by Translator on Sun Jun 05, 2011 at 07:28:26 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  That's pretty much it. (3+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          Translator, docmidwest, ninkasi23

          There's a little more to it in that sometimes there is a change in which "facts" are considered relevant and even which objects are involved.

          ¡Viva Baja Libre!

          by Azazello on Sun Jun 05, 2011 at 07:37:10 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

        •  Doc, further reflections on (3+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          Translator, docmidwest, semiot

          The Strucure of Scientific Revolutions: It seems to me that the popularity of this book comes from the unsettled feeling you get from reading it. Imagine in your field, if suddenly somebody has an insight and all of a sudden Mendeleev's chart is meaningless, there's a new way of seeing things and there are no elements, no orbitals, no bonds. You can see the appeal. That said, I may be wrong, but I don't think there has been a single paradigm shift in the 50 years since the book was published. Read it though, you'll enjoy it.

          ¡Viva Baja Libre!

          by Azazello on Sun Jun 05, 2011 at 08:43:50 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  Thanks! (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            Azazello

            String theory is sort of the new idea, but it needs a lot of supportive data to validate it.

            Warmest regards,

            Doc

            Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice, shame on me. Fool me over and over, then either I really love you blindly or I am a Republican.

            by Translator on Sun Jun 05, 2011 at 09:13:51 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site