4 ms·

Got it, that checks out. You have a very strict definition of science that I'm not sure how I feel about, we're dangerously close to a no-true-scotsman problem,

Got it, that checks out. You have a very strict definition of science that I'm not sure how I feel about, we're dangerously close to a no-true-scotsman problem, but I respect the idealism.

pdonis 6y ago
> You have a very strict definition of science that I'm not sure how I feel about The reason I am using such a strict definition is that looser ones make the term "science" a useless label that can be put on anything one likes, or withheld from anything one doesn't like. To make the term useful and meaningful, it has to focus on something more objective than individual preferences. The something more objective that I have been implicitly using is that hypotheses have to be tested using evidence and experimental data, and discarded if they are falsified; otherwise, even if the person making the hypothesis is a respected "scientist", the hypothesis doesn't get to be counted as "science". > we're dangerously close to a no-true-scotsman problem The way to avoid that is to have a reasonably objective criterion for applying the term. That's what I've tried to provide above.
- guscost 6y ago
  I mean, I agree with all of this, Kuhn's version is some bullshit that should not be called science! But then does "real science" even exist? If yes, that really means we have never changed to a new paradigm? The second in particular is really hard to believe.
  - pdonis 6y ago
    > does "real science" even exist? Sure it does. Newtonian mechanics, relativity, and QM/QFT are all real sciences. So are astronomy, chemistry, and biology, at least. > that really means we have never changed to a new paradigm? No. The old paradigm was Aristotelian physics (at least it was in physics). That paradigm, as I've already said, does not survive at all today, not even as a special case or an approximation. If you want examples from other sciences, here are some: Astronomy: old paradigm - astrology and other schemes that knew how to keep track of where stars and planets were in the sky, but did not construct or test any models to explain why the appearances were as they were; new paradigm - Ptolemaic astronomy, which was the first model that actually purported to explain why the appearances were as they were and to test itself against observations, further progress has all been on that same basic pattern, although the underlying models that have survived being tested against data have changed a lot. Chemistry: old paradigm - alchemy, phlogiston, caloric, pre-Lavoisier chemistry; new paradigm: Lavoisier and post-Lavoisier chemistry, which started with a proper understanding of combustion and went on to the atomic theory, kinetic theory of gases, periodic table of elements, and now is applying QM to analyzing why atoms and molecules have the chemical properties they have. Biology: old paradigm - purely phenomenological and taxonomic classification of organisms, without trying to explain any patterns or test any hypotheses against data; new paradigm - attempts to explain inheritance and the development of basic evolutionary theory.
    - guscost 6y ago
      It's very weird to argue with someone well-informed who seems to be (much) more of a modernist than I am. Cheers.
      - pdonis 6y ago
        > It's very weird to argue with someone well-informed who seems to be (much) more of a modernist than I am. I'm a modernist in certain things, but not in all things. I'm not much of a fan of modern politics, for example.
        guscost 6y ago
        It was a bit tongue-in-cheek there, modernist pretty much means "traditionalist" in this context. Philosophers have long since moved on to post-modernism and post-postmodernism and meta-modernism and all sorts of other nonsense. Kuhn was an archetypal post-modernist.
        pdonis 6y ago
        > modernist pretty much means "traditionalist" in this context Ah, ok. I'm certainly not a post-modernist or post-post-modernist or meta-modernist or any of those things.
        deleted 6y ago
        [deleted]

Got it, that checks out. You have a very strict definition of science that I'm not sure how I feel about, we're dangerously close to a no-true-scotsman problem, but I respect the idealism.

pdonis 6y ago

> You have a very strict definition of science that I'm not sure how I feel about The reason I am using such a strict definition is that looser ones make the term "science" a useless label that can be put on anything one likes, or withheld from anything one doesn't like. To make the term useful and meaningful, it has to focus on something more objective than individual preferences. The something more objective that I have been implicitly using is that hypotheses have to be tested using evidence and experimental data, and discarded if they are falsified; otherwise, even if the person making the hypothesis is a respected "scientist", the hypothesis doesn't get to be counted as "science". > we're dangerously close to a no-true-scotsman problem The way to avoid that is to have a reasonably objective criterion for applying the term. That's what I've tried to provide above.

guscost 6y ago
I mean, I agree with all of this, Kuhn's version is some bullshit that should not be called science! But then does "real science" even exist? If yes, that really means we have never changed to a new paradigm? The second in particular is really hard to believe.
- pdonis 6y ago
  > does "real science" even exist? Sure it does. Newtonian mechanics, relativity, and QM/QFT are all real sciences. So are astronomy, chemistry, and biology, at least. > that really means we have never changed to a new paradigm? No. The old paradigm was Aristotelian physics (at least it was in physics). That paradigm, as I've already said, does not survive at all today, not even as a special case or an approximation. If you want examples from other sciences, here are some: Astronomy: old paradigm - astrology and other schemes that knew how to keep track of where stars and planets were in the sky, but did not construct or test any models to explain why the appearances were as they were; new paradigm - Ptolemaic astronomy, which was the first model that actually purported to explain why the appearances were as they were and to test itself against observations, further progress has all been on that same basic pattern, although the underlying models that have survived being tested against data have changed a lot. Chemistry: old paradigm - alchemy, phlogiston, caloric, pre-Lavoisier chemistry; new paradigm: Lavoisier and post-Lavoisier chemistry, which started with a proper understanding of combustion and went on to the atomic theory, kinetic theory of gases, periodic table of elements, and now is applying QM to analyzing why atoms and molecules have the chemical properties they have. Biology: old paradigm - purely phenomenological and taxonomic classification of organisms, without trying to explain any patterns or test any hypotheses against data; new paradigm - attempts to explain inheritance and the development of basic evolutionary theory.
  - guscost 6y ago
    It's very weird to argue with someone well-informed who seems to be (much) more of a modernist than I am. Cheers.
    - pdonis 6y ago
      > It's very weird to argue with someone well-informed who seems to be (much) more of a modernist than I am. I'm a modernist in certain things, but not in all things. I'm not much of a fan of modern politics, for example.
      - guscost 6y ago
        It was a bit tongue-in-cheek there, modernist pretty much means "traditionalist" in this context. Philosophers have long since moved on to post-modernism and post-postmodernism and meta-modernism and all sorts of other nonsense. Kuhn was an archetypal post-modernist.
        pdonis 6y ago
        > modernist pretty much means "traditionalist" in this context Ah, ok. I'm certainly not a post-modernist or post-post-modernist or meta-modernist or any of those things.
        deleted 6y ago
        [deleted]