But I still think his his assupmtion is wrongheaded. In the example below he says the normal scientist of the day 'assumed' Aristotelian system but it was the Vatican that send out the thought police, not the society of scientist. Some 'lurches' in science do occur when some genius, usually in his 20's, has a epiphany but by and large science is a a lot of hard work. It may seem like a lurch when someone works on something for years in anonymity and appears to be a sudden success when his successes are anounced to the world. Scientist tend to be iconoclasts and are driven to discovery by ego. There is no noteriety in confirming the status quo. It is the churches who are threatened by information that is anomalous to their scared word. They absolutely depend on the inviolability of their doctrine to maintain the supernatural power of their myths. When they are prove to be anachronistic is when people have doubt (and they lose their influence). It is an interesting tactic that religionist would try to say they are true evolution paradigm busters but the first rerquirement would be a reasonable, testable, fact based hypothesis; but they have none. Instead, Kuhn found that knowledge building in science was a process that was marked by occasional great lurches forward. In fact, most science took place within the context of a broad, tacit, explanatory framework that he called a "paradigm." The Aristotelian system that theorized that the sun revolved around the earth is an example of a paradigm. Within a paradigm, science is determined in a way that is consistent with the paradigm. The experiments that count as useful are the ones that support the paradigm, and this typically involves refining and extending it. Kuhn calls this "normal science." The community of scientists forms a culture around the paradigm. They reject experiments and ostracize experimenters who are at odds with it. A prime example is Galileo, who bucked the existing paradigm and narrowly escaped with his life. After a period of time, experimental evidence begins to show that the prevailing paradigm is insufficient. Kuhn calls these "anomalies." What happens? The evidence is ignored, and the community of scientists goes along as if nothing had happened. Over time, more and more evidence accumulates, and still it is ignored. Finally, a scientist will propose a comprehensive new paradigm. This new theoretical framework will be accepted only if it fully explains both everything that the old paradigm explained as well as the anomalies. Moreover, the new paradigm must specify enough detail to be useful as a guide to normal science. Even then, the process of change is profoundly political, not logical, with more open-minded scientists gravitating toward the new paradigm, while others continue to cling to the old. This is what happened when Copernicus's paradigm supplanted Aristotle's, and when Einstein's supplanted Newton's. This is paradigmatic change. Kuhn relates the change process blow by blow.
Regarding Kuhn You have assumed that ID is THE alternate theory against the Modern Synthesis. From that, you have assumed ID as the paradigm apparent. The principal drive for ID has largely been from popular social pressure rather than collective scientific pressure*. One the oldest and most prominent ID groups, the Discovery Institute (where Behe’s a fellow), owes its most generous funding to three conservative Christian foundations: The Stewardship Foundation, the Maclellan Foundation, and Howard F. Ahmanson's Fieldstead & Company. The Discovery Institute leaked out their wedge document (possibly for Reactionary funds) that lays out their agenda to preserve God and religion (link is in previous pages inside topic). So what was the point of your Galileo story again? I don’t believe ID fits Kuhn’s theory as a paradigm replacement right now (more on that later) *The social nature of the movement doesn’t discredit ID itself, but does bring questions to its intent and methodology in formulating their empirical studies. According to the Kuhn summary, the sciences before and after a paradigm shift are so much different that their theories are incomparable. I don’t see how ID would fit that case. Supposing this does happen, that scientific resistance falls under the pressure of broad social forces (the bulk of the peer reviewed papers with ID prominently labeled inside them are financed from these social groups); it would be a paradigm Revision rather than a paradigm Revolution. It’s because the depth and breadth of the Modern Synthesis (your spottiness contention can be debated later) hasn’t been matched by ID. ID has parlayed some of the known holes of the Modern Synthesis, but didn’t explain how ID would address it in empirically re-testable experiments for every hole. Didn't Kuhn that suggest that the new theory would "explain" (as in less anomolies) things better than the old paradigm? ID doesn't even have a general framework to address that!! ID didn’t arise from an anomalous numbers pointing to a force of God (defined in this reply as a Being several scales more advanced than people). The God force was a conclusion set from various social beliefs. In fact, the workings of the social movements spearheading ID behave similarly to “normal science” in the categories 2 (The Route to Normal Science) and 3 (The Nature of Normal Science). The more I read into it, the more I want to label the movement lobbying for ID text in schools, Normal Religion. Irony intended. Anyways, the entire way the ID argument is set up isn’t to force the previous paradigm of Macroevolution to fade in its entirety. It’s the mere acknowledgement, a wedge. The Kuhn summary is either vague or confusing on the new paradigm being ‘incommensurate”. Kuhn, a trained physicist, commented how Einstein and his colleagues supplanted Newtonian physics, but the math behind Newton’s laws are taught and used to this day. When we want probes to get to their intended destination, whether in space or on planets, we rely more on Newton’s numbers than on relativistic laws. Furthermore, I'm not sure how a Kuhnian revolution benefits Intelligent Design in the long term or even at all. Kuhn believes that paradigms get so good at what they're doing that they're bound to fail once tools to measure and calculate observations become too precise. Yet, the idea of the God force makes it irresistible to pin anomalies on that factor. “To declare a paradigm invalid will require more than the falsification of the paradigm by direct comparison with nature.” The nature of science assumes that we’ll eventually be able to categorize and compare ID’s core principle with nature. This goes beyond number probability and patterns. Here’s an example. It’s not my point that ID will die if it becomes a paradigm, as Kuhn believes the nature is cyclical, but rather the core of Modern Synthesis will return were it left because ID is an inadequate candidate. -New lines of thought are emerging in different fields. There’s a shift in genetics study because the Human Genome Project provided more questions than answers. It seems that the limited number of genes (in the low 10,000s) inside humans will give way to a new field in the study of proteins. Modern Epigenesis, which is often refered to as an increase in complexity and argues for convergent evolution (rather than the examples of divergent evolution listed before), has provided an interesting study, where it claims that “You are what your mother ate.” Marcello Barbieri takes it a step further in his Cambridge Press published book, “The Organic Codes: An introduction into Semantic Biology”. In his Introduction, he acknowledges Kuhn and gives three points to the challenges of the Neo-Darwinistic paradigm (none related to ID) and includes interesting summaries for them. I haven’t read the entire book yet. This is to underscore that there are great lines in new research because new tools afford us the power to look into new questions. None of this data has been overtly suppressed. I honestly haven’t heard of any of the controversial and repeatable papers. Mendel’s writings left dormant for decades before geneticists of the 1920 have uncovered them. Even if Kuhn’s right, those papers are still in the archives. The lack of a conclusive and verifiable origin theory doesn't disprove the current evidence for Macroevolution. Physicists faced a similar dilemma with Einstein’s general theory of relativity when it predicted the existence of black holes long before the tools could observe it. It was one his many predictions uncovered later by technology, but the prediction of a singularity was Relativity's most notable. In the meanwhile, his contemporaries didn’t trash the theory or pin the singularity on a God force. Currently, the tools for biology and genetics can be amazingly simple. Once the power and sophistication in our tools of observation is magnified to the exact detail, ID could gain a larger credibility. Currently, I don’t believe it’s a revolution in paradigm you claim it will be, and I don’t see how that idea of thought would change the way science is done other than by removing details and doing relatively nothing to replace its gap. Maybe you can open up my inner-box mode of thinking with your thoughts or some ID specialist’s thoughts on the new possibilities ID entail. Yes. I agree that open questions of the data should be encouraged. However, ID should not be introduced as a theory if its legitimacy and intents have been attacked by all angles. I can definitely see public schools as "paradigmatic", but it's actually a problem with our school system itself than Biology in particular. For one thing, economics and mandated results makes the system lecture based instead of stressing open and independent study through mentorship. The "ideal" goal of a pre-university school system is to churn out trained students to work in advanced fields through standardized tests. You made a point that the introduction of ID would help break the paradigm, and implied that it would shatter the current Kuhnian model by encouraging free thought. First, would it really accomplish that given the nature of our school system? Well, it’s not a start for that cause, but rather a red herring. Most likely another paradigm shift would occur rather than a sustained period of directionless revolutions. And if I get what Kuhn is saying, maybe directionless revolutions is practically impossible in industrialized capital science…primarily, who would teach the teachers? It's peculiar that in your comments inside this thread, the shift in degrees regarding an ID driven paradigm shift has gone from a possible connotation into an almost definite connotation. It's a "shakey theory" because there is overt social resistance to some of Darwin's teachings. The teaching of Relativity isn't being contested in schools. The general chemistry series taught in public schools is a waste of tax payer money. Anyways, this causes a loss in accessibility and definition for students and the public which makes soundbites and superficial summaries more attractive. At least that's my take on why it's considered a "shakey theory". The philosophers of science have probably looked into that chicken-egg relationship in more detail. I can reply with science side if you wish, but I mainly wanted to address your Kuhn angle.
Can you elaborate a little more. It sounds like you have an opinion on the general science teaching in public schools. I think this is a critical point in a lot of things going on in public policy right now.
I’m not studied into the educational field, but I have compared my observations of high school and college. What I felt about high school chemistry is that most of the time spent was structured more like a history lesson than any sense of an overarching principle. You get to see the occasional “cool science trick” such as freezing something in liquid nitrogen, but the purpose was to raise general interest instead of the principle in particular. The lab work was similar in structure, but what was taught had little relevance later in college. All of the college prep in high school amounted to around 3 weeks out of 30 weeks of a year long general chemistry course. Maybe the labs and chemicals used are too expensive for public schools. The math involved was below calculus level, and the formulas were introduced but used more like a historic date or principle than something you better know. I liked chemistry, so I noticed the difference when I was cramming for midterms later on. In high school physics, the coach for our school’s baseball team taught that class. I guess it was similar in structure to the chemistry class since no calculus was involved. All I remember was watching videos and cheating on quizzes. My opinions about the system's structure is based mostly from this book, “The Underground History of American Education” by John Taylor Gatto. His spotty sourcing at times opens rooms for skepticism, but the enormous amount of his documentation paints a hugely disturbing picture of the system. The entire book is available at his website.
The entire Nightline debate can be found here: http://philbio.typepad.com/philosophy_of_biology/files/Ruse-Dembski.wmv You'll have to fiddle around with the equalizer settings to lessen the tinniness. Lowering the bars on the right side worked for me. Nature published an article about the debate. http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v434/n7037/pdf/4341062a.pdf It's balanced considering the context, and you can even allude to Kuhn's model on the fierce resistance of the scientific community regarding ID. What I found interesting is that college campuses are willing to teach ID as a philosophy instead of a science and the ID proponents' acceptance of that compromise.... I've visited the IDEA site mentioned in the Nature article, and unfortunately the essays they promote are dissapointing in the depth and scope of knowledge concerning evolution.
Bill would allow 'intelligent design' in Pennsylvania schools link Tuesday, June 21, 2005; Posted: 10:13 a.m. EDT (14:13 GMT) HARRISBURG, Pennsylvania (AP) -- Experts on both sides of the debate over whether public schools should teach "intelligent design" as an alternative to evolution -- a question already before a federal court -- sparred in front of a state legislative panel in Pennsylvania. The House Subcommittee on Basic Education heard testimony Monday on a bill that would allow local school boards to mandate that science lessons include intelligent design, a concept that holds the universe must have been created by an unspecified guiding force because it is so complex. The legislation is sponsored by only a dozen lawmakers, and its prospects of passing the General Assembly are unclear as lawmakers try to meet a June 30 state budget deadline. But a federal judge will consider the issue this fall, when a lawsuit against the Dover Area School District is scheduled to go to trial. The suit alleges that the school board violated the constitutional separation of church and state when it voted in October to require ninth-grade students to hear about intelligent design during biology class. Michael J. Behe, a biological sciences professor at Lehigh University, told the subcommittee that intelligent design has no religious underpinnings. Critics argue that it is a variation of creationism, the biblical-based view that regards God as the creator of life. Behe said intelligent design merely contends that evidence of complex physical structures shows that design, rather than evolution, is responsible for an organism or cell. Some lawmakers struggled to understand the concept. "I've always viewed evolution as sort of the ultimate design. It would change and adapt and accommodate to whatever the situation was," said Rep. P. Michael Sturla. "When did the intelligent design occur, in your theory?" Behe had no answer. "Questions like, 'When did the designing take place?' ... are all good questions. We'd love to have answers for them, but they are separate questions from the question, 'Was this designed in the first place?"' Behe said. The American Civil Liberties Union, one of the groups that filed the federal lawsuit, contends that allowing intelligent design to be taught would undermine the state's science standards, which specify the teaching of evolution. "How many new biotechnology companies will want to locate here in Pennsylvania if our students are being taught a watered-down version of the complexities of evolution?" asked Larry Frankel, legislative director for the state's ACLU chapter.
I see there are some posts in this thread I didn’t get back to: That’s just one example. At that time the church was the scientific establishment. Here are other examples. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paradigm_shift#Examples_of_paradigm_shifts_in_science Read the summary of the book at least. You are clearly not understanding the issue.
I said nothing of the sort. I said it’s an alternative hypothesis. You are referring to particular debate and context that exists within the broader debated. I don’t know enough about these groups to comment and I don’t think it’s that relevant to the facts we’re debating here. Let’s look at the argument on its merits and if its merits are being unjustly denied lets look at why that may be happening. You are trying to impugn the theory by questioning the motives some of those espousing it and that takes us too far away from the issue. You’re dodging dealing with the theory this way. Either their arguments (and I don’t know all these people so I don’t even know what they’re arguments are) make sense to they don’t. If they are denying a sound position then we can look at why, but there are not being called on that. The normal scientists are. Ok, I see your qualifier but again I think this takes us too far afield. It sidesteps the issue itself and tries to attack some of the people who espouse it. “…scientific resistance falls under the pressure of broad social forces…” This doesn’t describe a paradigm shift so we’re talking apples and oranges. And as a footnote, the bulk of the papers before any paradigm shift support the existing paradigm. Sure it does. Incorrect. You appear to be taking the position of some proponents of ID and applying it to the whole. This is a criticism that may apply to them but certainly doesn’t apply to ID as a whole. Right. The process Kuhn is describing can IMO be thought of as another example of a dialectic, thesis -> antithesis -> synthesis. So the synthesis contains elements of the old thesis, but there is a fundamental change in the understanding of how they fit together. Again, you appear to be referring to a position taken by some proponents of ID and not ID itself. Ok, but you have to afford the leniency to the ID, which I don’t think you’ve done. All of these factors together work to maintain the existing paradigm, whatever it may be. This is Kuhn’s point. People are indoctrinated into the existing definition of “truth” and when it starts to break down there is tremendous resistance to potential change because so many people have been single-mindedly indoctrinated into the existing theory and are beholden to it in a number of ways. These are some of the things that cause people and “the system” to hold onto the old paradigm, no matter what issues we’re talking about. In order for a new theory to supplant and older failing one it must overcome all these factors. Now you’re understanding what Kuhn is saying. There is a tremendous amount of inertia to overcome, and outright resistance too. This is why science doesn’t tend to move ahead in small increments, and instead goes through these revolutions or paradigm shifts. I’m arguing its merits, so perhaps it appears that way, but as I said my point is that it should be allowed as an alternative. Perhaps the most important reason for doing this is to teach the kids that there are alternatives and thereby teach kids to be more open minded about new theories in the future. It’s shaky on it’s scientific merits, as discussed in the thread. It can’t explain the first matter, its own building blocks. It can’t explain vertical evolution on a cellular level, and it can’t show any examples of it. The fossil record doesn’t support it, and the available time line doesn’t support it. Other than that it’s a great theory.
