Step 2: Because the dominant theory is dominant, there is a market for counter-examples. People start producing lots of experiments, data, etc. showing what the dominant theory misses -- they highlight anomalies.
-
-
Prikaži ovu nit
-
Step 3: A new theory comes along that handles all the anomalies BUT gets wrong some of things that the original theory got right. Everyone recognizes this, including the champions of the new theory.
Prikaži ovu nit -
Step 4: Champions of the new theory argue the new theory is better because it accounts for "more" of the data than the original theory. They point out the vast literature discussing anomalies that the dominant theory can't explain well.
Prikaži ovu nit -
But they fail to recognize that the "data" in this case is not representative -- anomalies where published because they were anomalies. Obvious successes of the dominant theory don't make it into the journals.
Prikaži ovu nit -
So, there is a kind of false benefit that new theories get, they will appear to account for more of the published data because the publication record is not a representative sample of all the things a theory can account for.
Prikaži ovu nit
Kraj razgovora
Novi razgovor -
-
-
Yes, all true. Outlined in detail in Kuhn's now perhaps overlooked treatise: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Structure_of_Scientific_Revolutions …
-
I don't think Kuhn described this particular dynamic, in part because it's less common in physics. And, don't worry, philosophers don't overlook Kuhn. If anything, it's the opposite.
- Još 5 drugih odgovora
Novi razgovor -
-
-
Sklar's Theory & Truth addresses this well
-
That's a blast from the past ;). I'll check it out.
Kraj razgovora
Novi razgovor -
-
-
Great thread...
Hvala. Twitter će to iskoristiti za poboljšanje vaše vremenske crte. PoništiPoništi
-
Čini se da učitavanje traje već neko vrijeme.
Twitter je možda preopterećen ili ima kratkotrajnih poteškoća u radu. Pokušajte ponovno ili potražite dodatne informacije u odjeljku Status Twittera.
Aspiring parasitic wasp