On Thursday, August 30, 2001 6:32 PM Tim Maroney tim@maroney.org wrote:
> Is anyone suggesting that we should never even question the idea that
> scientific paradigm shifts form a successive approximation to truth?
I see nothing wrong with such a question, but then all of you ignored my
Tuesday, August 28, 2001 9:24 PM post comparing Kuhn and Thagard...
Part of the problem, of course, is what is meant by "paradigm shifts" and
how they occur. Kuhn presents a theory of this, Paul Thagard presents an
alternative view. Specifically, Thagard rejects the inconmensurability
thesis. He backs this up by considering several episodes from the history
of science, including Lavoisier's oxygen hypthesis and Wegener's theory of
continental drift. His more recent book, _How Scientists Explain Disease_,
extends some of the arguments, though by no means is his work merely a
criticism of Kuhn and sociology of knowledge.
That aside, does this mean scientists always moves forward and never make
big mistakes in understanding? I would think not, though I disagree with
any radical claims that we can never know anything or that we are radically
determined by our historical or social contexts. Such claims are
self-refuting...
I think all interested would benefit from reading Thagard, especially his
_Conceptual Revolutions_. (See the URL at the end of this post for my
review of it.)
Cheers!
Daniel Ust
http://uweb.superlink.net/neptune/
See my "Scientific Revolutions Reconsidered"at:
http://uweb.superlink.net/neptune/Concept.html
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Fri Oct 12 2001 - 14:40:22 MDT