One of my favorite ideas in Structure is Kuhn's observation that contradictory evidence seldom suffices to overturn a scientific theory. Contradictory evidence is the norm. What's required to overturn a scientific theory is both contradictory evidence and a better theory - and even then adoption is often grudging and uneven.
I've found that idea to be very valuable when navigating disagreements at work (and in life generally). Refutation is seldom constructive in isolation - you also need to bring a constructive alternative if you want to keep things moving forward.
I guess that sounds like common sense, but I'm surprised by how often people cleave to exclusively negative argumentation (particularly in political discussions).
> One of my favorite ideas in Structure is Kuhn's observation that contradictory evidence seldom suffices to overturn a scientific theory.
That's not Kuhn's observation. Evidence immediately overturns a theory. What evidence doesn't do is get the scientific establishment to accept the new evidence. It's why paradigm shifts are rare and take a lot of time to happen. In many instances, society simply has to wait for the old to die and the new to gain power.
> (particularly in political discussions).
That was kuhn's point. Science operates more like politics and religion than science. Many times there is no reason, evidence or argument to change poeple's minds. You have to simply wait for the old guard to die off so that the new guard can usher in a paradigm shift.
It's how einstein went to the grave believing "god does not play dice" regardless of all the evidence. And his death moved physics from the deterministic to the nondeterministic world ( paradigm shift ). For all the praise einstein gets, he was wrong about the most important and fundamental aspect of physics.
I remember in 2000 when journalists asked George W Bush and Al Gore what their favorite books were. Bush said his was The Bible. Al Gore said his was The Structure of Scientific Revolutions by Thomas Kuhn. Probably could have called the election right then.
Yes, and irrespective of our opinions on each book... Reading the Bible lets you connect in some form with the majority of your electorate, while reading Kuhn does not.
> "Scientific knowledge, like language, is intrinsically the common property of a group or else nothing at all. To understand it we shall need to know the special
characteristics of the groups that create and use it."
I really don't know about this - the divisions that humans have created in their study of science are pretty artificial, i.e. physics/chemistry/biology, and seem to have more to do with academic politics and funding opportunities than the natural world itself. Nature doesn't care about such divisions, not in the least.
Mathematics is something of a special case, in that its results (and motivations) are as relevant to the world of art as they are to the world of science.
I'm having trouble understanding this comment. You seem to be grasping at one of the central points the author is raising, but you've phrased your comment as if what you've said is in opposition. Nature doesn't care about divisions, but our ways of communicating and sharing scientific knowledge are shaped by them - often to our detriment.
Richard Rhodes is fascinating on Polyani. He viewed the physicists as modern day guildsmen: you achieved merit as a journeyman scientist by proving to other scientists you could do good work and then.. you were one.
He also hung with the economists, it's interesting to read stuff from the early years of the LSE. People get hung up in Hayek but Polyani was hanging out in the same rooms.
I find a software parallel here. When building new systems in poorly understood domains, you can't proceed as if you already know the paradigm. Instead you have to poke around and try things until you find a working paradigm.
Apropos of a posthumous collection of his unpublished writings, there was an interesting book review of Kuhn's life and context around _Structure_: https://archive.is/Yr4B9 It was all quite different than I had expected, and sorta illustrates the challenges of intellectual theorizing when it goes 'viral', so to speak.
I started reading it a long time ago but stopped. Good book. All I can essentially remember is the claim (which seams fair) that scientific progress is not linear. And doesn’t necessarily build off itself. Sometimes new paradigms emerge and we completely discard the previous scientific consensus.
Extended copyright harms the public domain, but the only realistic solution is for authors or publishers to believe in the common good more than their own profits. That does happen: Wikipedia for example is licensed under CC-BY-SA. But then you have Jimmy Wales pleading for donations regularly. Authors and publishers depend on copyright for well deserved income. In the US the balance of interests has swung so far away from the common good toward the author’s and publisher’s interests that for example interesting parody literature like The Wind Done Gone (a parody of Gone with the Wind having the same characters) are suppressed.
The Structure of Scientific Revolutions is one of the best books I ever read.
[+] [-] jknoepfler|2 years ago|reply
I've found that idea to be very valuable when navigating disagreements at work (and in life generally). Refutation is seldom constructive in isolation - you also need to bring a constructive alternative if you want to keep things moving forward.
I guess that sounds like common sense, but I'm surprised by how often people cleave to exclusively negative argumentation (particularly in political discussions).
[+] [-] oilchange|2 years ago|reply
That's not Kuhn's observation. Evidence immediately overturns a theory. What evidence doesn't do is get the scientific establishment to accept the new evidence. It's why paradigm shifts are rare and take a lot of time to happen. In many instances, society simply has to wait for the old to die and the new to gain power.
> (particularly in political discussions).
That was kuhn's point. Science operates more like politics and religion than science. Many times there is no reason, evidence or argument to change poeple's minds. You have to simply wait for the old guard to die off so that the new guard can usher in a paradigm shift.
It's how einstein went to the grave believing "god does not play dice" regardless of all the evidence. And his death moved physics from the deterministic to the nondeterministic world ( paradigm shift ). For all the praise einstein gets, he was wrong about the most important and fundamental aspect of physics.
[+] [-] andsoitis|2 years ago|reply
[+] [-] gattis|2 years ago|reply
[+] [-] danielrpa|2 years ago|reply
[+] [-] wutangson1|2 years ago|reply
[+] [-] nonethewiser|2 years ago|reply
[+] [-] photochemsyn|2 years ago|reply
I really don't know about this - the divisions that humans have created in their study of science are pretty artificial, i.e. physics/chemistry/biology, and seem to have more to do with academic politics and funding opportunities than the natural world itself. Nature doesn't care about such divisions, not in the least.
Mathematics is something of a special case, in that its results (and motivations) are as relevant to the world of art as they are to the world of science.
[+] [-] canjobear|2 years ago|reply
Like, do you need to know anything about Roman culture to understand Latin grammar? No.
[+] [-] beeneuf|2 years ago|reply
[+] [-] analog31|2 years ago|reply
[+] [-] Kinrany|2 years ago|reply
[+] [-] 8bitsrule|2 years ago|reply
Personal Knowledge - Michael Polanyi, 1958.
"not only that there is knowledge that cannot be adequately articulated by verbal means, but also that all knowledge is rooted in tacit knowledge...."
Against Method. Paul Feyerabend, 1975.
"there no such thing as the scientific method and we should not impose a single methodological rule upon scientific practices."
[+] [-] ggm|2 years ago|reply
He also hung with the economists, it's interesting to read stuff from the early years of the LSE. People get hung up in Hayek but Polyani was hanging out in the same rooms.
[+] [-] clbrmbr|2 years ago|reply
[+] [-] kevinpet|2 years ago|reply
[+] [-] gwern|2 years ago|reply
[+] [-] nonethewiser|2 years ago|reply
[+] [-] freerangebat|2 years ago|reply
[+] [-] malodyets|2 years ago|reply
Rules here: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Public_domain_in_the_United_...
Extended copyright harms the public domain, but the only realistic solution is for authors or publishers to believe in the common good more than their own profits. That does happen: Wikipedia for example is licensed under CC-BY-SA. But then you have Jimmy Wales pleading for donations regularly. Authors and publishers depend on copyright for well deserved income. In the US the balance of interests has swung so far away from the common good toward the author’s and publisher’s interests that for example interesting parody literature like The Wind Done Gone (a parody of Gone with the Wind having the same characters) are suppressed.
The Structure of Scientific Revolutions is one of the best books I ever read.
[+] [-] unknown|2 years ago|reply
[deleted]