Skip to main content
Log In | Register

TR Memescape


Topic: Paradigms within Paradigms: Kuhn, Poincaré , Langer, et. al.  (Read 174 times) previous topic - next topic - Topic derived from Re: Trumpocalypse

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
  • Bilirubin
  • Needs a Life
  • Ain't nothing ta fuck wit'
  • 855

  • 402

Paradigms within Paradigms: Kuhn, Poincaré , Langer, et. al.
Hey Testy almost done reading Kuhn. Pretty damned good book
  • Last Edit: February 24, 2017, 11:59:04 AM by ravenscape

  • 6,661

  • 983

Re: Re: Trumpocalypse
Reply #1
Hey Testy almost done reading Kuhn. Pretty damned good book
Yeah. Probably the most significant not about science book about science I've ever read. If you are interested in a discussion on it, I'm game. My head doesn't make as many words as it used to but I am super familiar with the content so I can at least offer critique that I've already formulated. Chiefly that he describes how we organize thought and that science just happens to be one line of thought so it fits the structure. I think the debate over realism in science that lots of people get lost in when addressing Kuhn is a complete non sequitur. Science has a lot of unique elements that physics/chemistry exhibit that no other type of science or knowledge does. Chief among those are the near perfect identity of the units. Anyway, yeah. Excellent book that has broad practical utility which is rare in philosophy. People often try to either dismiss it or use it to justify their "paradigm shift" but there's a powerful statement that normal science actually requires those unrecognized assumptions. Even when we recognize them, normal science does better when it uses them.

It pairs exceptionally well with this one. Your mind will be blown. I know the 3 volumes in that link are available as free ebooks but the translation is way better in the version I linked. If you care enough to read it, do yourself a favor and buy the edition in that link.
Love is like a magic penny
 if you hold it tight you won't have any
if you give it away you'll have so many
they'll be rolling all over the floor

  • Bilirubin
  • Needs a Life
  • Ain't nothing ta fuck wit'
  • 855

  • 402

Re: Re: Re: Trumpocalypse
Reply #2
Hey Testy almost done reading Kuhn. Pretty damned good book
Yeah. Probably the most significant not about science book about science I've ever read. If you are interested in a discussion on it, I'm game. My head doesn't make as many words as it used to but I am super familiar with the content so I can at least offer critique that I've already formulated. Chiefly that he describes how we organize thought and that science just happens to be one line of thought so it fits the structure. I think the debate over realism in science that lots of people get lost in when addressing Kuhn is a complete non sequitur. Science has a lot of unique elements that physics/chemistry exhibit that no other type of science or knowledge does. Chief among those are the near perfect identity of the units. Anyway, yeah. Excellent book that has broad practical utility which is rare in philosophy. People often try to either dismiss it or use it to justify their "paradigm shift" but there's a powerful statement that normal science actually requires those unrecognized assumptions. Even when we recognize them, normal science does better when it uses them.

It pairs exceptionally well with this one. Your mind will be blown. I know the 3 volumes in that link are available as free ebooks but the translation is way better in the version I linked. If you care enough to read it, do yourself a favor and buy the edition in that link.
Thanks for the recommendation. It seems a natural progression from what I have been reading, going from Popper, to Hull's Science as a Process, and now to Kuhn. The point about how during a paradigm transition individuals on either side are unable to fully communicate about their differences because of their perceptual differences of what questions are even of value to ask really struck me last night, prompting me to make that comment as an aside. I never thought of it before, but it is just dead on, and also is consistent with various controversies I have been involved in.

  • Pingu
  • Needs a Life
  • 6,957

  • 1012

Re: Re: Re: Trumpocalypse
Reply #3
Hey Testy almost done reading Kuhn. Pretty damned good book
Yeah. Probably the most significant not about science book about science I've ever read. If you are interested in a discussion on it, I'm game. My head doesn't make as many words as it used to but I am super familiar with the content so I can at least offer critique that I've already formulated. Chiefly that he describes how we organize thought and that science just happens to be one line of thought so it fits the structure. I think the debate over realism in science that lots of people get lost in when addressing Kuhn is a complete non sequitur. Science has a lot of unique elements that physics/chemistry exhibit that no other type of science or knowledge does. Chief among those are the near perfect identity of the units. Anyway, yeah. Excellent book that has broad practical utility which is rare in philosophy. People often try to either dismiss it or use it to justify their "paradigm shift" but there's a powerful statement that normal science actually requires those unrecognized assumptions. Even when we recognize them, normal science does better when it uses them.

It pairs exceptionally well with this one. Your mind will be blown. I know the 3 volumes in that link are available as free ebooks but the translation is way better in the version I linked. If you care enough to read it, do yourself a favor and buy the edition in that link.
Thanks for the recommendation. It seems a natural progression from what I have been reading, going from Popper, to Hull's Science as a Process, and now to Kuhn. The point about how during a paradigm transition individuals on either side are unable to fully communicate about their differences because of their perceptual differences of what questions are even of value to ask really struck me last night, prompting me to make that comment as an aside. I never thought of it before, but it is just dead on, and also is consistent with various controversies I have been involved in.

Suzanne Langer was a big influence on me, though I haven't read her book Philosophy in a New Key for over forty years.

The bit I remember was her saying that it isn't the answers people have that typify an age but the questions they ask.  When paradigms are shifting, the difficulty is having arguments where people even recognise each other's questions.

  • 6,661

  • 983

Re: Re: Re: Trumpocalypse
Reply #4
Hey Testy almost done reading Kuhn. Pretty damned good book
Yeah. Probably the most significant not about science book about science I've ever read. If you are interested in a discussion on it, I'm game. My head doesn't make as many words as it used to but I am super familiar with the content so I can at least offer critique that I've already formulated. Chiefly that he describes how we organize thought and that science just happens to be one line of thought so it fits the structure. I think the debate over realism in science that lots of people get lost in when addressing Kuhn is a complete non sequitur. Science has a lot of unique elements that physics/chemistry exhibit that no other type of science or knowledge does. Chief among those are the near perfect identity of the units. Anyway, yeah. Excellent book that has broad practical utility which is rare in philosophy. People often try to either dismiss it or use it to justify their "paradigm shift" but there's a powerful statement that normal science actually requires those unrecognized assumptions. Even when we recognize them, normal science does better when it uses them.

It pairs exceptionally well with this one. Your mind will be blown. I know the 3 volumes in that link are available as free ebooks but the translation is way better in the version I linked. If you care enough to read it, do yourself a favor and buy the edition in that link.
Thanks for the recommendation. It seems a natural progression from what I have been reading, going from Popper, to Hull's Science as a Process, and now to Kuhn. The point about how during a paradigm transition individuals on either side are unable to fully communicate about their differences because of their perceptual differences of what questions are even of value to ask really struck me last night, prompting me to make that comment as an aside. I never thought of it before, but it is just dead on, and also is consistent with various controversies I have been involved in.
Incommensurability is an exact a analog for Morton's Demon.
Love is like a magic penny
 if you hold it tight you won't have any
if you give it away you'll have so many
they'll be rolling all over the floor

  • 6,661

  • 983

Re: Re: Re: Trumpocalypse
Reply #5
Hey Testy almost done reading Kuhn. Pretty damned good book
Yeah. Probably the most significant not about science book about science I've ever read. If you are interested in a discussion on it, I'm game. My head doesn't make as many words as it used to but I am super familiar with the content so I can at least offer critique that I've already formulated. Chiefly that he describes how we organize thought and that science just happens to be one line of thought so it fits the structure. I think the debate over realism in science that lots of people get lost in when addressing Kuhn is a complete non sequitur. Science has a lot of unique elements that physics/chemistry exhibit that no other type of science or knowledge does. Chief among those are the near perfect identity of the units. Anyway, yeah. Excellent book that has broad practical utility which is rare in philosophy. People often try to either dismiss it or use it to justify their "paradigm shift" but there's a powerful statement that normal science actually requires those unrecognized assumptions. Even when we recognize them, normal science does better when it uses them.

It pairs exceptionally well with this one. Your mind will be blown. I know the 3 volumes in that link are available as free ebooks but the translation is way better in the version I linked. If you care enough to read it, do yourself a favor and buy the edition in that link.
Thanks for the recommendation. It seems a natural progression from what I have been reading, going from Popper, to Hull's Science as a Process, and now to Kuhn. The point about how during a paradigm transition individuals on either side are unable to fully communicate about their differences because of their perceptual differences of what questions are even of value to ask really struck me last night, prompting me to make that comment as an aside. I never thought of it before, but it is just dead on, and also is consistent with various controversies I have been involved in.

Suzanne Langer was a big influence on me, though I haven't read her book Philosophy in a New Key for over forty years.

The bit I remember was her saying that it isn't the answers people have that typify an age but the questions they ask.  When paradigms are shifting, the difficulty is having arguments where people even recognise each other's questions.
Wow. It was definitely an influence on me too but I'd forgotten all about it. It's still on my shelf. I might read it again.

But the reason Poincaré fits so tightly with Kuhn is he gives the most thorough takedown of the idea that models are more than models anywhere. He demonstrates how it comes to be that we privilege one model over another and the actual futility in the effort. His punchline is basically that models are a little bit arbitrary but we can measure their effectiveness by their predictive capacity. By itself, that's a sort of a head scratcher but paired with Kuhn it becomes a paradigm about paradigms.
Love is like a magic penny
 if you hold it tight you won't have any
if you give it away you'll have so many
they'll be rolling all over the floor

  • Bilirubin
  • Needs a Life
  • Ain't nothing ta fuck wit'
  • 855

  • 402

Re: Re: Re: Trumpocalypse
Reply #6
Hey Testy almost done reading Kuhn. Pretty damned good book
Yeah. Probably the most significant not about science book about science I've ever read. If you are interested in a discussion on it, I'm game. My head doesn't make as many words as it used to but I am super familiar with the content so I can at least offer critique that I've already formulated. Chiefly that he describes how we organize thought and that science just happens to be one line of thought so it fits the structure. I think the debate over realism in science that lots of people get lost in when addressing Kuhn is a complete non sequitur. Science has a lot of unique elements that physics/chemistry exhibit that no other type of science or knowledge does. Chief among those are the near perfect identity of the units. Anyway, yeah. Excellent book that has broad practical utility which is rare in philosophy. People often try to either dismiss it or use it to justify their "paradigm shift" but there's a powerful statement that normal science actually requires those unrecognized assumptions. Even when we recognize them, normal science does better when it uses them.

It pairs exceptionally well with this one. Your mind will be blown. I know the 3 volumes in that link are available as free ebooks but the translation is way better in the version I linked. If you care enough to read it, do yourself a favor and buy the edition in that link.
Thanks for the recommendation. It seems a natural progression from what I have been reading, going from Popper, to Hull's Science as a Process, and now to Kuhn. The point about how during a paradigm transition individuals on either side are unable to fully communicate about their differences because of their perceptual differences of what questions are even of value to ask really struck me last night, prompting me to make that comment as an aside. I never thought of it before, but it is just dead on, and also is consistent with various controversies I have been involved in.

Suzanne Langer was a big influence on me, though I haven't read her book Philosophy in a New Key for over forty years.

The bit I remember was her saying that it isn't the answers people have that typify an age but the questions they ask.  When paradigms are shifting, the difficulty is having arguments where people even recognise each other's questions.
Wow. It was definitely an influence on me too but I'd forgotten all about it. It's still on my shelf. I might read it again.

But the reason Poincaré fits so tightly with Kuhn is he gives the most thorough takedown of the idea that models are more than models anywhere. He demonstrates how it comes to be that we privilege one model over another and the actual futility in the effort. His punchline is basically that models are a little bit arbitrary but we can measure their effectiveness by their predictive capacity. By itself, that's a sort of a head scratcher but paired with Kuhn it becomes a paradigm about paradigms.
Predictability is one area that Kuhn only hints at that we now take for granted, in his illustration of how paradigms can rapidly shift of the white spot in the middle of a shadow cast by a disk. Now I can't recall to what degree Popper mentions it, although he was jousting at the positivists wrt verifiability iirc

  • 6,661

  • 983

Re: Re: Re: Trumpocalypse
Reply #7
Hey Testy almost done reading Kuhn. Pretty damned good book
Yeah. Probably the most significant not about science book about science I've ever read. If you are interested in a discussion on it, I'm game. My head doesn't make as many words as it used to but I am super familiar with the content so I can at least offer critique that I've already formulated. Chiefly that he describes how we organize thought and that science just happens to be one line of thought so it fits the structure. I think the debate over realism in science that lots of people get lost in when addressing Kuhn is a complete non sequitur. Science has a lot of unique elements that physics/chemistry exhibit that no other type of science or knowledge does. Chief among those are the near perfect identity of the units. Anyway, yeah. Excellent book that has broad practical utility which is rare in philosophy. People often try to either dismiss it or use it to justify their "paradigm shift" but there's a powerful statement that normal science actually requires those unrecognized assumptions. Even when we recognize them, normal science does better when it uses them.

It pairs exceptionally well with this one. Your mind will be blown. I know the 3 volumes in that link are available as free ebooks but the translation is way better in the version I linked. If you care enough to read it, do yourself a favor and buy the edition in that link.
Thanks for the recommendation. It seems a natural progression from what I have been reading, going from Popper, to Hull's Science as a Process, and now to Kuhn. The point about how during a paradigm transition individuals on either side are unable to fully communicate about their differences because of their perceptual differences of what questions are even of value to ask really struck me last night, prompting me to make that comment as an aside. I never thought of it before, but it is just dead on, and also is consistent with various controversies I have been involved in.

Suzanne Langer was a big influence on me, though I haven't read her book Philosophy in a New Key for over forty years.

The bit I remember was her saying that it isn't the answers people have that typify an age but the questions they ask.  When paradigms are shifting, the difficulty is having arguments where people even recognise each other's questions.
Wow. It was definitely an influence on me too but I'd forgotten all about it. It's still on my shelf. I might read it again.

But the reason Poincaré fits so tightly with Kuhn is he gives the most thorough takedown of the idea that models are more than models anywhere. He demonstrates how it comes to be that we privilege one model over another and the actual futility in the effort. His punchline is basically that models are a little bit arbitrary but we can measure their effectiveness by their predictive capacity. By itself, that's a sort of a head scratcher but paired with Kuhn it becomes a paradigm about paradigms.
Predictability is one area that Kuhn only hints at that we now take for granted, in his illustration of how paradigms can rapidly shift of the white spot in the middle of a shadow cast by a disk. Now I can't recall to what degree Popper mentions it, although he was jousting at the positivists wrt verifiability iirc
Apparently Kuhn thought that each paradigm was closer to some objective truth or maybe it was popper who thought that. Anyway they had a sort of a bitter argument about it.
Love is like a magic penny
 if you hold it tight you won't have any
if you give it away you'll have so many
they'll be rolling all over the floor

  • 1,936

  • 660

Re: Paradigms within Paradigms: Kuhn, Poincare, Langer, et. al.
Reply #8
This thread was split from Trumpocalypse in the Politics forum.

  • el jefe
  • Needs a Life
  • asleep till 2020 or 2024
  • 2,007

  • 417

Re: Paradigms within Paradigms: Kuhn, Poincare, Langer, et. al.
Reply #9
is the poincaré you guys mention the same as the mathematician?

if so, I'm impressed that I keep discovering new fields he contributed to.  my man was a pimp.

  • 6,661

  • 983

Re: Paradigms within Paradigms: Kuhn, Poincare, Langer, et. al.
Reply #10
is the poincaré you guys mention the same as the mathematician?

if so, I'm impressed that I keep discovering new fields he contributed to.  my man was a pimp.
yes. Same guy.
Love is like a magic penny
 if you hold it tight you won't have any
if you give it away you'll have so many
they'll be rolling all over the floor

  • 6,661

  • 983

Re: Paradigms within Paradigms: Kuhn, Poincare, Langer, et. al.
Reply #11
If you are into the philosophy of geometry, you'd like that book too.
Love is like a magic penny
 if you hold it tight you won't have any
if you give it away you'll have so many
they'll be rolling all over the floor

  • 6,661

  • 983

Re: Paradigms within Paradigms: Kuhn, Poincaré , Langer, et. al.
Reply #12
So, Bili, What is your takeaway from Kuhn?
Love is like a magic penny
 if you hold it tight you won't have any
if you give it away you'll have so many
they'll be rolling all over the floor

  • Bilirubin
  • Needs a Life
  • Ain't nothing ta fuck wit'
  • 855

  • 402

Re: Paradigms within Paradigms: Kuhn, Poincaré , Langer, et. al.
Reply #13
Not done yet. Will be a few more days now that I am back from my trip. I am pacing at about a chapter or two a day.

  • 6,661

  • 983

Re: Paradigms within Paradigms: Kuhn, Poincaré , Langer, et. al.
Reply #14
K. I'll wait.
Love is like a magic penny
 if you hold it tight you won't have any
if you give it away you'll have so many
they'll be rolling all over the floor

  • Bilirubin
  • Needs a Life
  • Ain't nothing ta fuck wit'
  • 855

  • 402

Re: Paradigms within Paradigms: Kuhn, Poincaré , Langer, et. al.
Reply #15
Done with the main book. His ending on the themes of communities and modeling scientific progression as evolution were themes that I felt under addressed in the book (although both are the primary themes of Hull [1988]). I am now into the 1969 postscript and am pleased he is taking on the issue of scientific communities head on.

  • 6,661

  • 983

Re: Paradigms within Paradigms: Kuhn, Poincaré , Langer, et. al.
Reply #16
Are you reading the second edition?
Love is like a magic penny
 if you hold it tight you won't have any
if you give it away you'll have so many
they'll be rolling all over the floor

  • Bilirubin
  • Needs a Life
  • Ain't nothing ta fuck wit'
  • 855

  • 402

Re: Paradigms within Paradigms: Kuhn, Poincaré , Langer, et. al.
Reply #17
Third

  • Bilirubin
  • Needs a Life
  • Ain't nothing ta fuck wit'
  • 855

  • 402

Re: Paradigms within Paradigms: Kuhn, Poincaré , Langer, et. al.
Reply #18
Done. I liked the extended discussion of Incommensurability in the postscript

  • 2,102

  • 379

Re: Paradigms within Paradigms: Kuhn, Poincaré , Langer, et. al.
Reply #19
hey when you're done with it and I'm done with candidacy, can I borrow your copy? I tend to enjoy this stuff.

  • 6,661

  • 983

Re: Paradigms within Paradigms: Kuhn, Poincaré , Langer, et. al.
Reply #20
Done. I liked the extended discussion of Incommensurability in the postscript
That was the 1971 essay?

I tend to think of incommensurability as the big idea to take away from the whole thing. And that normal science is a good thing, not a bad thing. Postmodernist social theorists did a lot to make his point unclear but if you go to the source, it always seems to clear it up for me.

Just thinking about it yesterday with a friend who is doing a PhD in her early 50s (probably inspired by Pingu) and I mentioned Kuhn and she said something like what she liked about it was the freedom to think differently he offered. Basically, if I can summarize her point, his argument isn't all that useful standing alone but it inspires people to think in super novel ways about knowledge. Just as most creative thought isn't useful, most of what he inspires isn't useful but every so often it ends up being dramatic and profound.

To me, I definitely make a box defining boxes out of it. For me any idea with solid recursive self reference is worth keeping around if only in the same way you keep little riffs around and one day find the song they go perfectly with.
Love is like a magic penny
 if you hold it tight you won't have any
if you give it away you'll have so many
they'll be rolling all over the floor