2 ms·

> not all features of our models of nature are features of nature itself. Bingo! Therefore our models are each wrong in some way. Paradigm shifts happen when a

> not all features of our models of nature are features of nature itself. Bingo! Therefore our models are each wrong in some way. Paradigm shifts happen when a new model (theory, paradigm, etc) that is "less wrong" conquers an older incompatible model that is "more wrong". That incompatibility is the defining characteristic, not the usefulness or the scope of the model. Of course I consider Newtonian Dynamics to be incompatible with GR, one uses a single frame of reference and the other uses infinite frames of reference.

pdonis 6y ago
> our models are each wrong in some way Yes. > Paradigm shifts happen when a new model (theory, paradigm, etc) that is "less wrong" conquers an older incompatible model that is "more wrong". If you had left out the word "incompatible", I would have agreed with this as a description of what happens as science progresses, though I would still not like the term "paradigm shift" as a term for it. But you included "incompatible", and that makes a huge difference. By your definition, for example, no paradigm shift has happened in physics since Newtonian physics replaced Aristotelian physics, because "incompatible" requires that the old model not be usable as an approximation or special case of the new model. I realize you don't mean "incompatible" to mean that, since you say: > Of course I consider Newtonian Dynamics to be incompatible with GR And I disagree with that, for the reason I gave above (and have stated several times elsewhere in this discussion). The reason I consider that factor so important is the same reason Weinberg, in his review of Kuhn's book, took Kuhn to task for ignoring it: that ignoring it means ignoring how progress is made in science: by coming up with new models that still take advantage of all the true things we learned from the old model. As Weinberg says, if you have one of those T-shirts with Maxwell's Equations on it, you may have to worry about it going out of style, but not about its becoming false. But Maxwell's Equations are "wrong" and "incompatible" by your definition, since they're classical, not quantum, and classical electrodynamics is now replaced by quantum electrodynamics. So your definition basically agrees with Kuhn that no progress is ever made in science; all we can do is lurch from one paradigm to another, each incompatible with the last and throwing away all the knowledge we gained from the last. And in the transition from Aristotelian physics to Newtonian physics, that is what happened. Whatever true things Aristotelian physics had taught people, nobody has been taught since we got rid of it. The same is not true of Newtonian physics. And it will not be true of GR, QFT, or the Standard Model in some future time when we have found a new fundamental theory to which those are all approximations.

pdonis 6y ago

> our models are each wrong in some way Yes. > Paradigm shifts happen when a new model (theory, paradigm, etc) that is "less wrong" conquers an older incompatible model that is "more wrong". If you had left out the word "incompatible", I would have agreed with this as a description of what happens as science progresses, though I would still not like the term "paradigm shift" as a term for it. But you included "incompatible", and that makes a huge difference. By your definition, for example, no paradigm shift has happened in physics since Newtonian physics replaced Aristotelian physics, because "incompatible" requires that the old model not be usable as an approximation or special case of the new model. I realize you don't mean "incompatible" to mean that, since you say: > Of course I consider Newtonian Dynamics to be incompatible with GR And I disagree with that, for the reason I gave above (and have stated several times elsewhere in this discussion). The reason I consider that factor so important is the same reason Weinberg, in his review of Kuhn's book, took Kuhn to task for ignoring it: that ignoring it means ignoring how progress is made in science: by coming up with new models that still take advantage of all the true things we learned from the old model. As Weinberg says, if you have one of those T-shirts with Maxwell's Equations on it, you may have to worry about it going out of style, but not about its becoming false. But Maxwell's Equations are "wrong" and "incompatible" by your definition, since they're classical, not quantum, and classical electrodynamics is now replaced by quantum electrodynamics. So your definition basically agrees with Kuhn that no progress is ever made in science; all we can do is lurch from one paradigm to another, each incompatible with the last and throwing away all the knowledge we gained from the last. And in the transition from Aristotelian physics to Newtonian physics, that is what happened. Whatever true things Aristotelian physics had taught people, nobody has been taught since we got rid of it. The same is not true of Newtonian physics. And it will not be true of GR, QFT, or the Standard Model in some future time when we have found a new fundamental theory to which those are all approximations.