The Three E's : Evidence, Evolution, and, um, Eggs (Page 4)

calybonos
(Post deleted by calybonos 9 years ago)
calybonos
(Post deleted by calybonos 9 years ago)
CoIin
CoIin: Reading your posts, Caly, is a bit like reading Dostoevsky.

I always have a sneaking suspicion there's an awful lot going on that I'm not getting.

(Edited by CoIin)
9 years ago Report
0
calybonos
(Post deleted by calybonos 9 years ago)
CoIin
CoIin: So you think science is free of dogma?

Think again.

Enjoy this fascinating early essay by Thomas Kuhn. Be aware that TK is far from being a science-basher. "Dogma" for Kuhn is not a bad word; rather, staunch conservatism and fierce resistance to rival ways of describing the world are prerequisites for the prodigious puzzle-solving ability of 'normal science'.

http://strangebeautiful.com/other-texts/kuhn-function-dogma.pdf
9 years ago Report
0
thetrollishere
thetrollishere: dogma may be free of science, but science is not free of dogma...or is it?
9 years ago Report
0
CoIin
CoIin: Well, my main objective in starting this thread was to dispel, or at least to make readers question, certain naive and outdated notions of science which remain distressingly prevalent here in Wireclub and elsewhere, particularly with a view to Darwinian-based evolution, or, to use Kuhn's lingo -- the Darwinian paradigm. These notions include:-


1a. Evolutionary theory has been, and continues to be, subjected to severe and relentless testing.

2a. Scientific theories/paradigms are vulnerable to simple falsification by evidence. Evolutionary theory could be overthrown at any time by, say, a homicidal lagomorph holding a smoking gun.


Now, we must bear in mind that the only flawless model of science is science itself. Counterexamples can be found to ANY model. I'd suggest, however, and have tried to demonstrate over the previous few pages, that the unmistakably Popperian model outlined above is hopelessly inadequate. A more accurate model would take roughly the form:-


1b. Evolutionary theory is not under test. The hard core of the theory constitutes a set of assumptions, methods, and principles which are universally accepted by the scientific community. Reject these and you're likely to be told that you're not doing science.

2b. Evolutionary theory cannot be falsified in any decisive way. If or when the theory is supplanted, this will reflect a JUDGEMENT CALL, and will not -- indeed CANNOT -- represent a logical refutation. Rather than being predisposed to allow their theories to be falsified, as some would have us believe, scientists will go to extraordinary lengths to make evidence fit paradigm. Any prima facie falsifying evidence is much more likely to be ABSORBED.


THIS is the dogma Kuhn and others speak of. If you have any doubts read through the thread again, the top of page 2 in particular. Or just observe the behavior of the high profile science nuts here in Wireclub. The passions aroused and the animosity thereby inspired when evolutionary theory or any other cherished dogma (see also The Scientific Method) is challenged can be quite astounding. Do these seem to you like people amenable to core doctrinal amendment?

No doubt, their answer would be "Nonsense! Just show me the evidence and I'll change my mind." - which of course reflects the complete failure to recognize the significance of Kuhn's ideas! There CAN BE NO evidence which militates against the theory to those people for whom EVERYTHING IS INTERPRETED IN LIGHT OF THE CURRENT THEORY. Either it fits or we'll make it fit.

As they say in computer programming when a disgruntled customer complains of a bug in the program : "That's not a bug; it's a FEATURE!"



Some poignant excerpts from the Kuhnian essay posted above...

"These remarks should begin to clarify what I take a paradigm to be. It is, in the first place, a fundamental scientific achievement and one which includes both a theory and some exemplary applications to the results of experiment and observation. [...] And, finally, it is an accepted achievement in the sense that it is received by a group WHOSE MEMBERS NO LONGER TRY TO RIVAL IT or to create alternatives for it. Instead, they attempt to extend and exploit it in a variety of ways to which I shall shortly turn."

"Much that has been said so far is intended to indicate that -- except during occasional extraordinary periods to be discussed in the last section of this paper -- the practitioners of a mature scientific specialty are deeply committed to some one paradigm-based way of regarding and investigating nature. Their paradigm tells them about the sorts of entities with which the universe is populated, and about the way the members of that population behave; in addition, it informs them of the questions that may legitimately be asked about nature and of the techniques that can properly be used in the search for answers to them." [Colin : i.e. it tells them WHAT SCIENCE IS.]

"My point will become clearer if I now ask what it is that the existence of a paradigm leaves for the scientific community to do. The answer -- as obvious as the related existence of resistance to innovation and as often brushed under the carpet -- is that scientists, given a paradigm, STRIVE WITH ALL THEIR MIGHT AND SKILL TO BRING IT INTO CLOSER AND CLOSER AGREEMENT WITH NATURE."
(Edited by CoIin)
9 years ago Report
1
Corwin
Corwin: I'd love to hear one of these "opposing theories" to Evolution sometime... of course, one that doesn't involve God waving His hand and making new species appear out of thin-air.
Because you know how us Science Fanatics are... we'll just claim that the theory of God performing magic tricks is "unscientific"... shame on us for that bold and unfounded assertion.

And shame on Science for having that stick up it's butt about insisting that Science should only explain Nature in ways that can be explained "naturally". I suppose Science should lighten up a bit and include the unknowable and unprovable divine acts of God into their theories and equations... we could call it the DAG effect (divine act of God), or GDI causation (God did it).


**looks at watch and counts the minutes until Colin deletes this post**
9 years ago Report
0
CoIin
CoIin: Another symptom by which a pathological devotion to a belief system can be recognized is the manic jealousy aroused in the devotee when the object of his affections is perceived to be under assault. It's the same knee-jerk response we see elicited in the religious fanatic when his pet prophet is treated with what he deems to be less than the proper reverence.

Science is not under attack, at least not in this thread. Value judgements on whether science is good or bad for society, and normative methodological judgements on how science OUGHT TO be done are matters of little interest to me. What concerns me is how science IS done.

(And whether you're in the Politics, Religion, Science, or any other forum, when you encounter the zealot whose understanding of ethics is apparently unable to transcend a Bushesque "We're good; they're bad " dichotomy.... well, you just know how the conversation is gonna go. )

The thread does contain a normative aspect, of course. Any criticism is directed not at science, but rather at the MISREPRESENTATION of science. It's directed at those ill informed and often overzealous followers of science who routinely parrot manifestly false, exaggerated, or misleading claims (often every bit as ludicrous as those of the religious nuts); whose passion clearly far exceeds their knowledge; for whom it is apparently more important that science be portrayed NICELY than accurately.

The hapless historian attempting to reconstruct the life of Jesus, insofar as limited evidence permits, incurs the same risk that I do.

Historian : We have evidence suggesting that Jesus was bald.
Nut : So you think you're better than Jesus!!
Historian : Er, no. I think Jesus was bald.
(Edited by CoIin)
9 years ago Report
0
Corwin
Corwin: That doesn't really address the point that I brought up though.

My point was that It seems silly to attempt to poke holes in a theory of which there simply is no other reasonable alternative. I don't think that really qualifies as "pathological devotion", but rather more like "the only game in town".

I know that for me personally, I would be all ears to hear an actual scientific alternative theory that adheres to Natural Law, but the only alternatives I've seen are Creationism and Intelligent Design... and face it... the very foundation of those "theories" involves divine intervention, which I think we can both agree is outside of what we could consider Natural Law. This falls into the realm of Theology, not Science.

So let's even throw the word "Evolution" aside for the moment...
... on the one hand we have what we call "The Anthropic Principle", in which life arose and evolved in the Universe because we exist in a Universe that allowed for it to happen. The reasoning being that if this was a Universe in which life could NOT arise and evolve, we wouldn't be here observing it.
The two possibilities in this case, are that:
(a) a self-replicating molecule arranging itself out of complex organic molecules was extremely unlikely, but considering the immensity and vastness of the Universe the odds were in favour that it would happen somewhere (in this scenario life is extremely rare).
Or (b) there is an as of yet undiscovered element to this Anthropic Principle (which given the correct conditions) encourages complex organic molecules to arrange themselves into self-replicating structures. The fact that life appeared so early in Earth's history suggests this possibility (in this scenario life is abundant in the Universe).
This still doesn't "deny" the existence of a God per say (perhaps God designed the Universe with the Anthropic Principle built into it), but that is unknowable and unprovable, and therefore aside from the point.

On the other hand we have the only other alternative theory that has been presented, of Creationism, or the "God did it" theory... this theory involves a very busy Supreme Being that goes around constantly tinkering with His creation to make things happen the way He wants. In this theory the Universe is "broken" or "flawed"... there IS NO Anthropic Principle, and this God is a very very busy man who spent and spends each and every day making the "impossible" happen to ensure that life will arise and continue it's existence and diversity.

The two biggest flaws with this theory are -- Firstly, the Universe in which we observe (whether created by God or not) seems to be functioning just fine without "divine intervention", and until we can observe it firsthand we will continue with the assertion that this is so.
Secondly, this theory puts "limitations" on the very God they claim to be "omnipotent"... He can do ANYTHING... EXCEPT (apparently) create a Universe that functions the way He wants it to without constant tinkering and maintenance.

So... in a nutshell (and metaphorically speaking)... my God is more omnipotent than theirs.
9 years ago Report
0
thetrollishere
thetrollishere: ^that makes no sense lol
(Edited by thetrollishere)
9 years ago Report
0
sprocket girl
sprocket girl: "My point was that It seems silly to attempt to poke holes in a theory of which there simply is no other reasonable alternative. I don't think that really qualifies as "pathological devotion", but rather more like "the only game in town"."

Colin, first great thread.. i actually just read the whole thing.. my brain is slightly bogged now so for give me if this is a rambling..
oh, by the way great thread my friend..

okay now on to my thoughts.. which are undoubtedly wrong..

just because to most or to some there is "no other reasonable alternative" this is no reason to protect from puncture..
at one time there was no reasonable alternative "to the humble masses" of explaining fire. it was magic and even in some cultures feared!!
then there is a whole issue that boats went sailing out to never return thus the sailed off the edge of the earth, thus the earth was surely flat...

so to conclude... bogus! question everything regardless of it seeming like there is no alternative.
for me to blindly accept the science because there is no other reasonable explination is no different than me accepting religion.

rubbish i say rubbish... poke wholes and challenge everything, every idea every thought...

now please all, poke wholes in my thoughts and ideas.. dont accept it because no one has yet to give an alternative. examine it and question it.

9 years ago Report
2
CoIin
CoIin: Sprocket Girl

Glad to hear your thoughts. And anyone who declares "...my thoughts.. which are undoubtedly wrong" immediately makes a good impression on me.

That makes two of us.
9 years ago Report
0
thetrollishere
thetrollishere: well said sprocket girl.
9 years ago Report
0
calybonos
(Post deleted by calybonos 9 years ago)
Corwin
Corwin: @thetrollishere -- So you read my post, can't make sense of it, and immediately jump to the conclusion that it doesn't make sense. But there is another explanation - it in fact did make sense, but it went over your head, and you personally didn't understand it.
But if the former is true rather than the latter, if you could please elaborate and point out to me specific points regarding my nonsensicalness, it would be much appreciated.

@sprocket girl -- Very sporting of you to encourage others to poke "wholes" in your ideas... but if it's all the same to you, I'd rather poke "holes" in them instead. I'll do this one point at a time, from first to last, for ease of cross-reference.

-- "just because to most or to some there is 'no other reasonable alternative' this is no reason to protect from puncture.. "

Well, firstly let's define who this "most" or "some" in fact are. You are referring to the general scientific community... as I mentioned earlier, no other "reasonable" alternative has been offered that adheres to Natural Law. Merely stating that Evolution is wrong and offering an inexplicable and indescribable "divine" explanation is not exactly scientific, and isn't effectively "punching holes" into anything, at least not in the eyes of the general scientific community.
Evolution doesn't need some metaphorical "shield" to protect it from scrutiny, it does a very good job of resisting puncture all by itself, and ignorance or superstitious belief is a very dull sword.
But the ignorant and superstitious will make their weak arguments, pat themselves on the back, and claim victory for their side. (Read up on the "Dunning Kruger Effect" )

-- "at one time there was no reasonable alternative "to the humble masses" of explaining fire. it was magic and even in some cultures feared!! "

Arthur C. Clarke stated "Any technology, sufficiently advanced, is indistinguishable from magic."
But you are forgetting that we have since then learned exactly what fire is and how it works, and have known for quite some time now. Superstitious belief has been replaced with logic and deductive reasoning. Fire can now be explained very easily with our present understanding of Chemistry. Should we question that too? Does our understanding of how organic molecules undergo oxidization and combustion also need some kind of "metaphorical shield" to protect it from people punching holes in this theory? Do you feel that an alternative theory of fire is necessary, or likely to be presented any time soon?
The reality is that our present level of scientific knowledge has advanced well beyond merely explaining fire... I think we can chalk that one up as fact at this point.

And I would like to hear more about these cultures that "feared fire". Seeing how our Homo Erectus ancestors mastered fire over a million years before Humans existed, and fire has been essential to Human survival since the dawning of our species, I would be very surprised to learn about a culture that feared it.

-- "then there is a whole issue that boats went sailing out to never return thus the sailed off the edge of the earth, thus the earth was surely flat... "

Ummmm... this is a strange argument... if anything you are driving my point home, not presenting an argument against it.
The fact is that only the ignorant and superstitious ever held a belief that boats sailed over the edge of a flat Earth. Even a few thousand years ago the Greeks knew very well that the Earth was spherical just like any other heavenly body, and proved this through the use of mathematics and measurement. A couple of hundred years B.C. the Greek mathematician Eratosthenes not only knew the Earth was spherical, but calculated the circumference and tilt of axis with surprising accuracy.
In fact, the navigation of our oceans with sailing ships would have been impossible without an understanding of Longitude and Latitude... a Sextant would be a useless tool on a flat Earth.

So what's your point?
Should we be questioning this "spherical Earth" theory as well? You can if you like, but the math and deductive reasoning are overwhelmingly sound. Although I have heard someone here in the Wire forums insist that the Sun revolves around the Earth, and insists that there is no proof otherwise.... a belief maintained through ignorance.
9 years ago Report
0
Corwin
Corwin: Oh... I missed one...

-- "for me to blindly accept the science because there is no other reasonable explination is no different than me accepting religion. "

Science does not ask to be accepted blindly... it invites question, and provides very reasonable and sound answers. The only ones who would need to accept Science on faith alone would be those who are not asking questions, or who are ignoring the answers it provides.
"Ignorance" --- Root word "ignore".

You provide examples of Man's past ignorance, and then use this as proof for why we must be wrong now? And if Science presents a sound theory on something, a theory in which no other reasonable alternative can be found, this somehow makes Science akin to Religion??

e.g. "Seems like rocks fall to the ground because of Gravity... hmmm... no other plausible theory seems to be presenting itself... sounds like Religion to me!"

Edit (just added one more point):
You are welcome to question the answers that Science provides... question all you like... the more you question, the more you learn (that's been my experience)... but if you doubt the validity of a particular answer, but you or anyone else are unable to provide a better one, should you not at least accept the possibility that the answer may be the correct one?
(Read up on Occam's Razor)
(Edited by Corwin)
9 years ago Report
0
thetrollishere
thetrollishere: ^no I understood it, but there is no point in trying to talk about a mindless tangent. I understood that you misunderstood Colin's entire post. Just clarifying
(Edited by thetrollishere)
9 years ago Report
0
sprocket girl
sprocket girl: i think my post may have been viewed as stating that accepted science is wrong.
not my point at all, my point it very well someday could be proved wrong with more science.

never ever did i claim that accepting a god is more reasonable than the big bang or evolution. to the contrary i was stating both should be examined and poked and prodded. i understand my science knowledge may be as limited as my religous knowledge. so, of course i gladly accept that i am ignorant on many things. i preffer the term 'yet to be informed', mainly because i am still growing in knowledge, or at least that is my goal. plus, the word ignorant in my culture is used as an insult, though i understand the word is not actually one.

moving on...

my point is perception, we know all we know do to past experience and this forms our perception. so if our Natural Laws arepossibly formed from some perception they in fact could be a misperception.

my rebuking, was mostly based on philisophical views. the concept that we know by what we have experieanced. history, of which i am less ignorant than religion and science shows that science is ever changing. medically they do things that have never been before believed possible.. lame written example. point is science may change tomorrow and show the big bang to be as crazy as a god named Zeus.

by all means replace creationalism with, evelution or the big bang or any other idea or concept.
simply do not stop questioning any of them regardless if they are the best option.

always question until you find no other options... most scientists may agree?

myself i do not see how any explainable science challenges a diety. a diety could have used science to get his days, years, lightyears workddone.

heck Nessy from that northern loche may hold all the answers. personally i would not waste my time looking for her. however, i would never guarantee she is in fact the myth i believe her to be.

if anything a scientist should wish his view questioned.

-if a diety created it all, that diety does not need us to believe it.
-if the big bang is true and factually only questioning its validity will lead to absolute certainty.
-if evelution (which i know things evlove) is the source of all life from an ooze.. i would assume man will evolve enough that eventually we know for sure. (assuming we do not destroy our planet before we get there)
-if Nessy is an alien that came and made it all and hides in Loche Ness, then maybe look for her and find her and ask her why?

which do i actually belive??? truthfully they could all be wrong and they could all be right!! or it have all started some way that no one has yet to dream of.

my whole point, we should question them and chellenge them with every other idea and tool we are capable of using.

do i agree with that i am ignorant? yes, but at least i am still questioning and seeking knowledge.

my goal is not to rebuke, but instead offer maybe something others wouldnt. my youth and lack of specific knowledge may offer if nothing else some simplistic questions. possible only offers colin a laugh. maybe, offers nothing at all...

i do appreciate the effort you took to show me my errors. i agree with a lot of what you wrote and clarified... just wanted to quickly say i am not suggesting a diety over the most accepted scientific explination. one i wont limit them to being exclusive.

last experts do not nessicarily know more than anyone else... sometimes the best lumberjack in the world, top of hos field cant see the forrest for the trees. i would still trust him for logs as i trust the scientists of the world over my own intelect. just the same i question them and want wholes poked in their work.
9 years ago Report
1
Corwin
Corwin: Just noticed that you're under 18... so you have a whole lifetime ahead of you to absorb knowledge. The most important thing to know is how little you know, and a hunger for knowledge is a valuable asset. It seems like you're on the right track.

Step one is learning how to learn... the next step is to never stop learning, and keeping your mind elastic. You see the examples of the religious zealot who has made his mind up that he knows all he needs to know, and the result is the elasticity of their minds becomes permanently hardened, and cannot accept any new idea. Hardened rubber cracks under strain, it does not bend.

And I suppose I agree with you about questioning the generally accepted view... any good Science can only be good if it stands up to intense scrutiny. But also keep in mind something Carl Sagan once said, "Have an open mind, but not so open that your brains fall out."
9 years ago Report
0
thetrollishere
thetrollishere: Stop throwing insults around just because a teenage girl said something more intelligent than you did. Shame on you for treating someone younger like that, just because he/she disagreed with your point. This thread isn't about being condescending or putting people down. We can agree to disagree like mature adults.
(Edited by thetrollishere)
9 years ago Report
1
Corwin
Corwin: Excuse me, Mister "Troll"... but if you knew how to read, you would have understood that I paid her a complement!

^^^ THAT comment was an insult... towards YOU.

I also followed that complement with a bit of what I think is good advice... the road to knowledge and enlightenment is a long one, with many pitfalls and hazards along the way... I would like to think that I pointed her in the right direction. And there is nothing more precious than a fresh canvas to be painted on. Myself, as a person who has played the role of father and teacher many times, I would not shrug my responsibilities to lead a new generation to this path of knowledge and enlightenment (to the best of my knowledge and abilities).

And what I told her is something I apply to myself as well... "The most important thing you can know is how little you know."
(Read up on the "Dunning Kruger Effect" )
---------------

The fact that you chose your online name as "thetrollishere" says a lot about your intentions.... why don't you go read a book or something... go learn something.
9 years ago Report
0
sprocket girl
sprocket girl: corvin,

oh yes.. i agree

though, i would caution to think the thought that age has anything to do with knowledeg or understanding. it may in fact be as dangerous as to not entertain any notion! after all entertaining a notion is much like entertaining a baby brother or a pack of hyenas. the refusal to entertain a smaller less able sibling could lead to baby brother wandering about and falling down a well. Where as much like, if you refuse to entertain a pack of hyenas, they may restlessly decide it best to entertain themselves by making a snack of you. yet, in refusing to entertain a notion (simply a fancy word saying you refuse to ponder an idea) this is surely much braver than facing blood-thirsty animals, or even inraged parents whom have descovered their darling child at the bottom of a well, after all who can claim to know what an idea does when it ventures off to entertain itself. this all said and related to dismiss my thoughts and notions because i have yet to harden by failures and long forgotten dreams may in fact leave my notions to entertain themselves to much sorrow and peril.

just noticed that you are well beyond the age of childhood and wondering on all notions. in the age when many and some without reason nor logic have decided they infact do know much and have quite a bit of knowledge. yet, you seem to still be seeking and looking upon the world with fresh wonder and possible disbelief. thus, it too seems you are on the right path as well. i intend no sarcasm or meaness as i believe neither did you. simply ofter words for thought, maybe we all should be in equal questioning of the truths those taller individuals share with us short folks, who have yet to maximise their potential height. after all not a single bomb created nor war was strated by a less knowledgable child.

in conclussion, if a person purposes that the greatest minds have concluded most likely within reason the world was created by a bang and then the evolving of particles to monkeys to man. i would remind these same sorts of minds, of a different perspective, have purposed a God did this very work in seven simple days. i know neither to infact be true and have known men of great substance and accolade to believe both. where are we left if not hardend like volcanized rubber but to conclude either notion is possible and should be scrutinized.

maybe when i grow in years and reach the age when my own knowledge of the working world has substance, i will settle fully on dismissing a notion against the notions of others. oh, surely i hope that day is long of and does not come with haste. for that would leave many notions venturing about entertaining themselves, possibly to the gravest of consequences!

9 years ago Report
0
thetrollishere
thetrollishere: first of all, I'm a female. second of all, it's spelled "compliment".
9 years ago Report
0
CoIin
CoIin: @ Sprocket Girl

It's a pleasure to read your posts. You exhibit a keen perspicacity quite absent in many people several times your age, while the kind of intellectual modesty you exemplify is often associated, I believe, with real talent.

You covered a lot of ground in your posts, but if a common theme can be identified, it might be "If you think it's simple, think again", to which I would heartily add my own endorsement. The people who think these things are simple - whether it be science, religion, or whatever else - I generally find to be the most ignorant of all. You may not have answers (and, needless to say, neither do I), but your recognition of the complexity of the issues at hand already speaks volumes for you.

I thought I'd select just one of the aspects you raised in your last post - namely, perception - for a superficial analysis here to illustrate how things are seldom as simple as they might at first appear.

Until perhaps half a century ago philosophers routinely divided the world up into "facts" - which we perceive, and "theories" - which we construct. Such a dichotomy remains commonplace to this day in the everyday discourse of Wireclub and elsewhere. The idea is that while we may disagree on our interpretations, all observers will agree on the same facts. Theories may be fickle and fallible but the cold, hard facts don't lie.

These days it's widely recognized that things are - as we might have anticipated by now - not quite so simple. Alas! There is no convenient sharp distinction between facts and theories; the two are interlinked in a complex web; prima facie facts shape the theories drawn from them, while theories, at least to some extent, determine what facts there are. You'll often hear it said nowadays that all observation is "theory-laden" which is just a fancy (and conspiracy-theory-inducing ) way of saying that observation is not "pure" or untainted by theory. As post-linguistic adults we cannot help but bring our pre-existing conceptual or theoretical schemes to bear on all that we observe.

A few examples might help to clarify:-

1. Will all observers agree that Moby Dick is a mammal? Or a fish? Or is this determination context-sensitive, i.e. does it depend on the taxonomic scheme we bring to the observation? Now, I'm not recommending that in your next biology exam you declare a whale to be a fish, the point rather is that when your teacher tells you you're wrong, are you ABSOLUTELY wrong? Or are you wrong only with respect to your teacher's taxonomy? Can Mother Nature herself settle the matter for us? Is this a fact of nature or a fact of convention?


2. More relevant to the topic of evolution, consider a term such as "gene" which is quite obviously immersed in theory, or even the more pedestrian "fossil" or "species". Are these things given to us in observation? Or do we need a pre-existing concept or theory of "fossil", say, in order to determine what is, and what is not, a fossil? What would a Neanderthal have thought if he stumbled over one of these fossil-like thingies?

Is there anything in nature that answers to our concept of "species" or "gene"? Do all scientists even agree on what a species or gene is?


3. I guess all football fans will agree that 32 teams competed in the recent World Cup finals. A claim that "20 teams competed" would be just plain wrong, wouldn't it? But what if we subsequently discover that what the disputants understand by the term "team" is not the same? If they're speaking at cross purposes to a certain degree, can we say "One is right and the other is wrong. It's simple!"?

Ptolemy believed that the planets orbit the Earth. Copernicus believed that the planets orbit the Sun. And any fool knows that Copernicus was right and Ptolemy was wrong. Right?

But wait a minute... what does the term "planet" refer to? Are the two men speaking the same language? Do they agree on the facts? For Ptolemy the planets were {the Moon, Mercury, Venus, the Sun, Mars, Jupiter, Saturn}. For Copernicus they were {Mercury, Venus, Earth, Mars, Jupiter, Saturn}. Consequent upon the Copernican revolution, the Sun is now a star, and the Moon a completely new entity - a satellite. Here we see not just correction within a common conceptual scheme, but rather the introduction of a new and incompatible conceptual scheme.

When two people who appear to disagree with each other turn out to be speaking different languages, can their respective claims be meaningfully compared? This is the spectre of "incommensurability" which looms large in the work of Thomas Kuhn, Paul Feyerabend, and others, and brings into play esoterica from the philosophy of language and even the philosophy of mind. Its significance is something we'll all have to appraise for ourselves.

Ah well, just some silly stuff to think about. The more you read about this, the more you realize how hopelessly inadequate one's own knowledge is, and how complex the issues involved are. I have nothing but admiration for the people who do understand these very difficult issues and write about them so that people like myself can try to, at least, catch a glimpse of the show too.

The moral of the story is, perhaps, (and I've said this before) : For every complex problem there's a simple answer - and it's almost certainly wrong!
(Edited by CoIin)
9 years ago Report
0