2 ms·
I'm puzzled by this. As far as I can understand from your argument, a bunch of scientists didn't apply scientific method as well as they could. Meanwhile, ano
by lusr 14y ago
I'm puzzled by this. As far as I can understand from your argument, a bunch of scientists didn't apply scientific method as well as they could. Meanwhile, another bunch did apply scientific method more objectively. And objectivity won out.
Where is the problem? There is an implicit, and idealistic, assumption here that science is flawed because the implementation scientists have is less than perfect and new ideas are not accepted instantly - despite there being very good reasons for this, and, in the long run, all of this working perfectly well to advance human knowledge.
- nessus42 14y agoI don't think that Kuhn described this process as "flawed". He was an historian wo revealed for us a pattern that often plays itself out in actuality, where for scientific progress to continue, the proponents of the current orthodoxy have to grow old and retire, in order to allow the new paradigm in. This process is completely different from what we are typically taught. Also, what was not so apparent pre-Kuhn is that proponents of the new paradigm were often forced out of the field altogether if the time was not yet right. To conclude that this means that science is "flawed" is a value judgement. But it certainly means that it is not an idealized puck on a frictionless plain.