It is much less difficult for scientists in one period of normal science to understand the theories of an earlier paradigm in their mature form.
Actually the fallacy of both Kuhn and Weinberg is not accounting for the idea that periodizing history is an arbitrary, artificial thing to do and the paradigm shifts are more gradual then sudden flip-flops. On that note, there are shades of grey between any two points between theories, the more extreme the points the more incommensurable the two theories. (Which is practically recapitulating what Weinberg said, but I say it in this manner because I feel all Weinberg is doing is recapitulating Kuhn in his own understanding rather then really contradicting him.)
Also, without denying that there IS an objective reality out there or truth, science is NOT the progression towards the objective reality or truth but a set of models seeking to translate that reality into a universal language compatible with our senses. Science works because we have a common set of senses to view a single objective reality, so it's almost as good as saying that we're studying reality itself, but we will always be limited subjectively by our senses as to what reality really is. We were not made to be aware of more then three spatial dimensions for example, so any theory of science that requires more to explain the universe is really just a model of these higher dimensions, not what these dimensions might actually look or act like. It may in fact be possible (though I certainly do not hope so) that our experience of the small (modeled by quantum mechanics) and our experience of the large (modeled by relativity) are truly flat out contradictory not due to the nature of reality but due to the nature of our consciousness, and therefore may never be able to be resolved by the methods of science. Given this, Kuhn's views on scientific progress make complete sense and ring true to me.
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png)
timeasmymeasure
no subject
Date: 2007-02-04 05:08 pm (UTC)Actually the fallacy of both Kuhn and Weinberg is not accounting for the idea that periodizing history is an arbitrary, artificial thing to do and the paradigm shifts are more gradual then sudden flip-flops. On that note, there are shades of grey between any two points between theories, the more extreme the points the more incommensurable the two theories. (Which is practically recapitulating what Weinberg said, but I say it in this manner because I feel all Weinberg is doing is recapitulating Kuhn in his own understanding rather then really contradicting him.)
Also, without denying that there IS an objective reality out there or truth, science is NOT the progression towards the objective reality or truth but a set of models seeking to translate that reality into a universal language compatible with our senses. Science works because we have a common set of senses to view a single objective reality, so it's almost as good as saying that we're studying reality itself, but we will always be limited subjectively by our senses as to what reality really is. We were not made to be aware of more then three spatial dimensions for example, so any theory of science that requires more to explain the universe is really just a model of these higher dimensions, not what these dimensions might actually look or act like. It may in fact be possible (though I certainly do not hope so) that our experience of the small (modeled by quantum mechanics) and our experience of the large (modeled by relativity) are truly flat out contradictory not due to the nature of reality but due to the nature of our consciousness, and therefore may never be able to be resolved by the methods of science. Given this, Kuhn's views on scientific progress make complete sense and ring true to me.