4 ms·
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 co
by 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 agoBut 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 agoScience 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