6 ms·

> First there is a historical analysis of the process of an old theory being replaced by a new one. Second Kuhn tries to come up with a metaphysical explanation

> First there is a historical analysis of the process of an old theory being replaced by a new one. Second Kuhn tries to come up with a metaphysical explanation of what is going on here. Sometimes this is overblown. The canonical case of Relativity replacing Newtonian mechanics doesn't invalidate Newton. Rather, it makes Newton's theory a special case of GR that's still valid for most everyday calculations.

Aqueous 8y ago
Exactly - and the same is true with regard to special vs. general relativity. Special relativity is another special case of general relativity for inertial reference frames. And special relativity itself is a necessary consequence of the theory of electrodynamics that Maxwell described holding true in every reference frame. But it no more replaces Maxwell's theory than brings it to its necessary conclusion. And even in the quantum world - which physicists famously can't reconcile with observations of general relativity - Maxwell's equations are true even though we have quantum electrodynamics - which include Maxwell's equations as their foundation. So the paradigm shifts aren't often as earth-shattering as they seem to outsiders or as Kuhn makes them out to be, because they often subsume and contain the prior theory. The way Morris characterizes Kuhn makes it seem like the different worlds of theory, before- and after- revolution, are orthogonal to each other - or can't even talk to each other at all, because they are using the same terms to describe totally different concepts. But I don't believe that to be true in the slightest. That said, I must admit that I haven't read Kuhn so I would have to rely on Morris' interpretation of Kuhn - which seems, ahem, somewhat slanted.
- westoncb 8y ago
  Kuhn is very explicit on that the typical behavior is this kind of subsuming rather than outright replacement. He even points out cases where the new paradigm causes us to lose the ability to say certain things we were capable of in the old one.
eli_gottlieb 8y ago
It's nearly always overblown. A new paradigm usually renders the evidence more probable, giving a more precise and accurate explanation, but it rarely fully contradicts old paradigms, since that would leave it with their replications and evidence to explain away!
- Nomentatus 8y ago
  But a new paradigm also changes the definitions of terms. Once Newton had distinguished "mass" (resistance to acceleration) from "weight" (on the earth's surface) then the meaning of "weight" has also changed. (Medieval scholars had previously refined "weight" however, which helped Newton.) You can teach this new worldview, but it isn't obvious, and it doesn't consist merely in an addition to previous evidence or propositions.
  - eli_gottlieb 8y ago
    >it doesn't consist merely in an addition to previous evidence or propositions. It mostly does, once you account for the fact that science isn't about language.
    - Nomentatus 8y ago
      Science doesn't use language for those "about" statements? Hunh. Math is language. Science doesn't partake of that? Doesn't expand that language? C'mon man. The post office is about parcels, but it uses addresses. Can't be helped.
    - Nomentatus 8y ago
      "it" above = the change in definition
adrianratnapala 8y ago
> Rather, it makes Newton's theory a special case of GR ... Newtonian mechanics (and gravity) are a special-case approximation of relativistic theories. To me that's no biggie, but to some philosophers I've spoken to take the attitude that "approximately right is still wrong". That sounds silly to me, but they have a point which might made better by emphasising the special-case nature of the approximation. Within Newtonian mechanics, there is no hint that it is a special case of something, it's validity seems to go on for ever. And it is that seeming which is not even approximately correct.
- eli_gottlieb 8y ago
  >Newtonian mechanics (and gravity) are a special-case approximation of relativistic theories. To me that's no biggie, but to some philosophers I've spoken to take the attitude that "approximately right is still wrong". Well, those philosophers should stop expecting a world measured in terms of continuous variables to have a discrete causal topology.
TheOtherHobbes 8y ago
Relativity didn't replace Newton for a specific subset of engineering calculations. But it absolutely destroyed Newton as a comprehensive scientific world view. Newtonian philosophical fundamentals such as absolute universal time and absolute relative velocity are absolutely wrong - not just wrong for specific high-energy problems, but fundamentally incorrect conceptually, which makes them useless for the development of non-trivial future insight. This is Kuhn's main point, and it's a shame so few people seem to understand it. A paradigm shift isn't just a new way of solving problems, it's a completely new conceptual map of reality, made of different entities connected by different relationships.

Aqueous 8y ago

Exactly - and the same is true with regard to special vs. general relativity. Special relativity is another special case of general relativity for inertial reference frames. And special relativity itself is a necessary consequence of the theory of electrodynamics that Maxwell described holding true in every reference frame. But it no more replaces Maxwell's theory than brings it to its necessary conclusion. And even in the quantum world - which physicists famously can't reconcile with observations of general relativity - Maxwell's equations are true even though we have quantum electrodynamics - which include Maxwell's equations as their foundation. So the paradigm shifts aren't often as earth-shattering as they seem to outsiders or as Kuhn makes them out to be, because they often subsume and contain the prior theory. The way Morris characterizes Kuhn makes it seem like the different worlds of theory, before- and after- revolution, are orthogonal to each other - or can't even talk to each other at all, because they are using the same terms to describe totally different concepts. But I don't believe that to be true in the slightest. That said, I must admit that I haven't read Kuhn so I would have to rely on Morris' interpretation of Kuhn - which seems, ahem, somewhat slanted.

westoncb 8y ago
Kuhn is very explicit on that the typical behavior is this kind of subsuming rather than outright replacement. He even points out cases where the new paradigm causes us to lose the ability to say certain things we were capable of in the old one.

eli_gottlieb 8y ago

It's nearly always overblown. A new paradigm usually renders the evidence more probable, giving a more precise and accurate explanation, but it rarely fully contradicts old paradigms, since that would leave it with their replications and evidence to explain away!

Nomentatus 8y ago
But a new paradigm also changes the definitions of terms. Once Newton had distinguished "mass" (resistance to acceleration) from "weight" (on the earth's surface) then the meaning of "weight" has also changed. (Medieval scholars had previously refined "weight" however, which helped Newton.) You can teach this new worldview, but it isn't obvious, and it doesn't consist merely in an addition to previous evidence or propositions.
- eli_gottlieb 8y ago
  >it doesn't consist merely in an addition to previous evidence or propositions. It mostly does, once you account for the fact that science isn't about language.
  - Nomentatus 8y ago
    Science doesn't use language for those "about" statements? Hunh. Math is language. Science doesn't partake of that? Doesn't expand that language? C'mon man. The post office is about parcels, but it uses addresses. Can't be helped.
  - Nomentatus 8y ago
    "it" above = the change in definition

adrianratnapala 8y ago

> Rather, it makes Newton's theory a special case of GR ... Newtonian mechanics (and gravity) are a special-case approximation of relativistic theories. To me that's no biggie, but to some philosophers I've spoken to take the attitude that "approximately right is still wrong". That sounds silly to me, but they have a point which might made better by emphasising the special-case nature of the approximation. Within Newtonian mechanics, there is no hint that it is a special case of something, it's validity seems to go on for ever. And it is that seeming which is not even approximately correct.

eli_gottlieb 8y ago
>Newtonian mechanics (and gravity) are a special-case approximation of relativistic theories. To me that's no biggie, but to some philosophers I've spoken to take the attitude that "approximately right is still wrong". Well, those philosophers should stop expecting a world measured in terms of continuous variables to have a discrete causal topology.

TheOtherHobbes 8y ago

Relativity didn't replace Newton for a specific subset of engineering calculations. But it absolutely destroyed Newton as a comprehensive scientific world view. Newtonian philosophical fundamentals such as absolute universal time and absolute relative velocity are absolutely wrong - not just wrong for specific high-energy problems, but fundamentally incorrect conceptually, which makes them useless for the development of non-trivial future insight. This is Kuhn's main point, and it's a shame so few people seem to understand it. A paradigm shift isn't just a new way of solving problems, it's a completely new conceptual map of reality, made of different entities connected by different relationships.