Re: SCIENCE OFTEN MASQUERADES AS LAW (AND VICE-VERSA)
David Rublin (email@example.com)
Wed, 26 Apr 1995 00:04:17 GMT
In article <firstname.lastname@example.org>, Richard Kondo <email@example.com> wrote:
>Poor Richard (firstname.lastname@example.org) wrote:
>: Poor Richard agrees with Dr. Fujita and believes that many scientists
Blah Blah Blah....snip..........
> As usual, Poor Richard has written another one of his/her
>provocative statements without much evidential substantiation. However,
>the issues raised are important.
> I don't know to the degree that the peer review system is
>abused and the degree to which orthodoxy reigns.
> However, I would like to consider the ideas of Thomas Kuhn,
>elaborated in his book, 'The Structure of a Scientific Revolution'.
>His idea, paraphrased and filtered through my interpretation, is that
>science proceeds via 'paradigm shifts'. In this scheme, scientists
>do science according to the reigning paradigms and orthodoxies. These
>paradigms include theories, experimental methodologies and tools.
>The paradigm shapes the types of the experiments done and the
>interpretation of the data. However, as the science proceeds,
>contradictions between the experimental data and current theory
>accumulate to the point that someone creates a new paradigm. Some
>of the usually cited paradigms have been a) Ptolemic universe to
>Copernican Universe, b) Newtonian to Einsteinian c) classical to
> Kuhn's ideas were attacked by philosophers of science, since
>he seemed to deny scientific progress. Additionally, it is
>difficult to discern shifts in paradigm (it depends on the eye
>of the beholder). However, they lit the imagination of many in
>other fields, and they introduced the notion of the sociology of
> Scientific endeavour includes not only an empirical
>search for the nature of the universe, but political
>squabbling and scientific doctrine. Individual scientists
>can and do fall victim to these forces. However, before we
>completely condemn orthodoxies, it should be noted that
>paradigms focus scientific effort in areas and questions which
>have been shown to be fruitful in the past. Most of us, myself
>included, need such structure.
>Cardiac Muscle Research Laboratory
Any one else see the analogies that can be drawn between this process and
the way that law works? Law followed by interpritation and precidence for
new interpritation . . . followed by a new law ect. And yet both subject
to the the ethics of individuals. Hmm, interisting.