Pinczewski-Lee, Joe (LRC) writes: > Well I'd respond by saying that the cause of ulcers is NOT a paradigm > shift... the GERM THEORY > OF DISEASE is a paradigm shift. The move from Newtonian Phsyics to > Einsteinian Physics is a paradigm shift...
Then we must ask, if the model you support is true, how many physicists stuck to Newtonian physics in a meaningful way as opposed to embracing Eisteinian physics? (I mean by "meaningful way" here that they were using as the main explanatory theory for dynamics. After all, most scientists still use Netwonian mechanics today, simply because the predictions are close enough and much easier to arrive at then those of STR and GTR.) Also, why did they stick to it? > The cause of ulcers is what Kuhn > would call "normal" science. We assume that something, not bad air or or > evil spirits cause ulcers. The ulcer debate is WITHIN an accepted paradigm. > Most science is that sort of science. Granted, though we need a better definition of both. After all, one might just arbitrarily pick and choose paradigm shifts and normal science. For example, was the shift from a shrinking earth to plate tectonics normal science in action or a paradigm shift? After all, none of the pre-Wegnerian geologists were claiming spirits moved the Earth's crust. Yet the change seems a big one -- a paradigmatic one -- especially since it shifted focus in field. One man's normal scientific change might be another's paradigm shift. (See Thagard's _Conceptual Revolutions_ for his take on why paradigm's shift.) I'm not suggesting I've solution to this problem, but I don't think people holding even an old paradigm die off rather than change their minds. Getting back to the original context of this thread, are the usual arcane debates evidence of people not being able to get past their paradigms or something else? I believe the latter -- for the most part. Cheers! Daniel Ust http://uweb.superlink.net/neptune/
