On Thu, May 24, 2012 at 10:56 PM, Eric Walker <eric.wal...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Kuhn understood that scientists are emotional creatures, given to biases > and fads of various kinds, and that this makes even the hard sciences an > eminently social endeavor. > Its far worse than Kuhn indicates. He misdiagnoses the problem. Its not, primarily, a problem with pathway dependence in neurological development. Its primarily a problem with financial dependence on political institutions. I wrote about this in an essay titled Yeoman As the Foundation of Scientific Revolutions<http://jimbowery.blogspot.com/2007/01/yeomen-as-foundation-of-scientific.html> . The reason this is far worse than Kuhn indicates is that it is entirely conceivable that such financial dependence could enslave generation after generation of "scientists". Moreover, it is an unnecessary indictment of age-related cognitive structure to adopt Kuhn's hypothesis as is evidenced, for example, by E. O. Wilson's late age revolution in his thinking about eusociality in contradiction to his claim to popular fame in sociobiology. Indeed, cold fusion itself indicates that quite a few folks of advanced age -- particularly those who are rendered financially independent by tenure or retirement -- are more capable of objective evaluation of the evidence than are those who are pursuing careers sensitive to political nuance. I hate to think what would have become of Newton or Darwin had they not been among the relatively independent British middle (yeoman) class.
