if true, where does this place us in the scientific revolution / paradigm shift cycle? https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Structure_of_Scientific_Revolutions …https://twitter.com/Plinz/status/1076927452717502465 …
-
-
Replying to @micahstubbs
This idea was invented by Kuhn while he was at Harvard, next to one of the largest groups of modernist thinkers. It was itself a modernist theory, i.e. a paradigmatic argument that would have to be answered by another paradigmatic argument instead of turning it into a method.
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @Plinz
so the question I wonder about then is "are Kuhn-style scientific paradigm cycles are still occurring?" possible answers 1) no, science is different now 2) yes, but each cycle is now too long/slow to observe 3) yes, but on some wider/narrow scale than one field
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @micahstubbs @Plinz
@micahstubbs Retweeted Joscha Bach
I parse this thread as sympathetic to the position 1) science is different now (with several possible explanations how, why)https://twitter.com/Plinz/status/1076927452717502465 …
@micahstubbs added,
Joscha Bach @PlinzParadigmatic progress in the sciences has stalled since the 1970ies. There is disagreement about whether we have just figured out all the relevant paradigms, or whether we shifted from answering questions (which is cross disciplinary) to applying methods (cementing disciplines).Show this thread1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @micahstubbs @Plinz
my naive idea is 2) that Kuhn's ideas about paradigms & how the scientific community generates consensus basically still hold, but that the current dominant paradigms will remain so for longer than recent previous dominant paradigms.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @micahstubbs @Plinz
if so, this would _look like_ theoretical science had ground to a halt. new paradigms would be both harder to see (b/c they are actually farther out in time) and harder to imagine (since fewer scientists alive today have experienced anything other than the dominant paradigm)
2 replies 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @micahstubbs @Plinz
why would paradigms stay dominant longer than before? better information tech, more globalization, more robust institutions?
don't have a satisfying theory yet.1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes
Mostly because paradigms have been optimized for stability and grant money yield, which in turn created hordes of academic employees that are extremely invested in further stability and grant money yield.
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.