“Truth emerges more readily from error than from confusion.” —Francis Bacon on why we need good theories, even the wrong ones (which all of them are as Kuhn observes). without a theory, we’ll remain confused and in the dark; the truth will evade us.
-
Show this thread
-
“Few of these elaborate efforts would have been conceived and none would have been carried out without a paradigm theory to define the problem and to guarantee the existence of a stable solution.” Kuhn adds that data collected for its own sake w/o theory won’t lead to discovery.
2 replies 1 retweet 5 likesShow this thread -
so this section makes me think of much of social psych: “mere facts, unrelated and unrelatable to the continuing progress”pic.twitter.com/PquCDxiCgZ
1 reply 1 retweet 7 likesShow this thread -
and this: “Even the project whose goal is paradigm articulation does not aim at the unexpected novelty.” how did we come so far away from this way of thinking about science?
1 reply 1 retweet 3 likesShow this thread -
“Normal science does and must continually strive to bring theory and fact into closer agreement, and that activity can easily be seen as testing or as a search for confirmation or falsification.” —Kuhn not favoring one approach (confirmation vs falsfication) over the other.
1 reply 1 retweet 4 likesShow this thread -
“To discover how scientific revolutions are effected, we shall therefore have to examine not only the impact of nature and of logic, but also the technique of persuasive argumentation effective within ... the community of scientists.” —Kuhn on science as a social construct.
1 reply 2 retweets 7 likesShow this thread -
“During the last half of the 17th century many scientists preferred to say that the round shape of the opium particles enabled them to sooth the nerves about which they moved.”
What’s considered scientific knowledge shifts over time > no room for overconfidence, now (or ever).2 replies 1 retweet 5 likesShow this thread -
“The depreciation of historical fact is deeply, and probably functionally, ingrained in the ideology of the scientific profession, the same profession that places highest of all values upon factual details of other sorts.”—Kuhn on scientists’ necessarily biased view of history.
1 reply 1 retweet 2 likesShow this thread -
Why Kuhn isn’t a Popperian and why Popper’s view of science is so limiting/narrow (at least one of the reasons)pic.twitter.com/nNneZfhNxl
2 replies 1 retweet 2 likesShow this thread -
Exactly why I think it’s not worth trying to convince those who don’t readily jump on the reproducibility and open science bandwagon. I think it’s a waste of resources to chase them down. Change lies w the new gen researchers, not those seeing the world through the old paradigm.pic.twitter.com/ZC9X8BgbOs
3 replies 2 retweets 10 likesShow this thread
Sadly the new and the old are upholding almost identical power structures regardless.
Although I thought reproducibility and open science were mutually inclusive it seems it's not the case.
-
-
Replying to @o_guest
Yup I totally agree wrt power structures. That’s a bit depressing to me. Or more than a bit.
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like - 1 more reply
New conversation -
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.