Is Scientific Progress Cumulative or Revolutionary? Kuhn Part 2: Contemporary Science

Notes and Thoughts on Kuhn's The Nature and Necessity of Scientific Revolutions:  Part 2


Overview


Kuhn argues that scientific progress comes about when one paradigm is replaced by other.  This is in contrast to the view that scientific progress is cumulative, and new theories simply modify existing theoretical structures.


Application of The Revolutionary Model to Contemporary Science


So, the Kuhn model of scientific progress fits pretty well when we apply it to changes in early science from the 16th, 17th, 18th, and some of the 19th Centuries.  Clearly, some of those early scientific theories were completely wrong.  So much so that if they had been around, even the Insane Clown Posse would have looked, well...sane.  Back then, they didn't even know how magnets worked!  But what about now?  I mean, clearly we've got it right, now; we know how magnets work.  So, scientific progress from this point on will be cumulative...or will it?  Oh! Snap! 


Counter-Example to Kuhn (?)


Clearly, when the Copernican model of the solar system totally annihilated the Ptolemaic model, we are looking at an instance that supports Kuhn's thesis that scientific change is revolutionary.  It is not possible to simultaneously hold both theories.  One theory--in this case--Ptolemaic astronomy, was relegated to the dust bin of history (I invented that phrase) as per Kuhn's theory.   But what about contemporary physics?  


In the early 20th Century, Einsteinian physics showed that Newtonian physics was wrong.  So, if Kuhn is right, no scientists should be using Newtonian physics.  But wait!  I know I'm getting on in my years but I'm pretty sure that it was Newtonian physics I was taught in high school (shout out to Mr. Kelly) and I went to high school after the great Einsteinian revolution!  Did Mr. Kelly not get the memo?  Was he a staunch physics conservative?  Was I instead in a history of science class?  My head is spinning now!  So, many possibilities! 


What makes matters worse is that still today, working engineers and physicists use Newtonian physics.  Aaaand they even appeal to Einsteinian physics to prove that Newtonian physics works!  Appeal to Einstein's theory shows that in limited circumstances, Newtonian physics gives us the right answers.  It seems that we can derive Newton's theory from Einstein's.  What the crap is going on?


One might reply that, unlike Einstein's theory, Newton's physics only works within a certain domain-- when the relative velocities of bodies being considered are small compared to the speed of light.  


But the Newtonians can counter by saying that their theory isn't wrong, it's just that the early proponents applied it to cases for which it does not apply.  They over-extended the domain of the theory; they didn't have any evidence to support their claims that Newtonian physics applied to such high relative velocity bodies.  When you apply it to its correct domain, it is unproblematic.  So, there!  Newton rules!  Kuhn's wrong. 


Kuhn Kounter Attack (*laser sound effects)


Trivial Science


First of all, if we say that theories are immune from criticism provided we ignore all the things they can't explain, and only judge them within the confines of what we already know they explain, then almost every past theory can be protected.  This is just stark nonsense!  


Also, it makes the use of the theory very restrictive and further scientific development is almost ruled out by definition because, again, the theory can only be used in areas that are already well-known.  Research is always conducted within the framework of a theory, and if we already know the areas to which a theory can be applied or not, "progress" will be trivial.  


Can Newtonian Physics Really Be Derived from Einsteinian Physics?


K.  Shit's about to get a bit technical but don't be scurd.  We gong do dis t'getha.  


So, we have a set of statements from Einsteinian physics which are the axioms and definitions of the theory; that is the laws and terms.  Call them E1, E2, E3...Also we have the axioms of Newtonian physics: N1, N2, N2...  The suggestion from the science as evolution camp is that we can derive the N statements from the E statements.   In other words, the N statements can be shown to be a sub-set of the E statements; Newtonian physics is a part of the larger Einsteinian physics.


The E statements represent spacial position, time, mass, (and the laws and other definitions in E) and the N statements also include most of these notions.  So, it seems like we're talkin' 'bout the same things in both theories; so, maybe we can derive (or translate terms into) the Newtonian statements from the E statements and shew that Newton's laws (the N statements) are just a subsection of a greater whole (the E statements).  


But wait!  'member how I said way back in the prollem of cirkilairity that all scientific statements presuppose a background theory? (the technical term is that they are "theory-laden").  Why is this relevant?  Because if we look closely, the E terms don't correspond directly with the N terms.  E mass refers to something different than N mass--they have different properties.  N mass is always conserved but E mass is convertible to energy.  So, we can't do a direct translation of E terms to N terms because they refer to fundamentally different things.  


The only way to do it would be to import the E concepts into the corresponding N terms, but then the N terms wouldn't be N terms any more, they'd be E terms.  So, the N statements cannot be derived from the E statements, so, Newtonian physics cannot be derived as a subset of Einsteinian physics.  


The disanalogy of N-mass, N-spacial location, N-time, etc and E-mass, E-spacial location, E-time, etc, might not be as dramatic as other historical examples.  (Phlogiston to oxygen [how things burn], corpuscules to waves [how light travels].)  However, the fundamental point is that, despite the eeeeeery resemblance of the names of the terms, they do not refer to the same things.  


Conclusions


Finally, while it is true that an old theory can be considered a special case of the prevailing theory it must be retrofitted for the purpose with the full benefit of hindsight.  Understanding the specific parameters within which Newtonian physics works and why, requires the prior acceptance of Einsteinian physics as the correct model.   


Furthermore, while it may be possible to work within Newtonian physics, the prospects for actual scientific progress are very small because it can only be applied to areas where we know it works already--so, no new significant discoveries can be made.  In other words, Newtonian physics is good for applied sciences and engineering, but not so much for research that might lead to important advances in new understandings of our universe.


The last point (I promise) is that the prevailing scientific paradigm is the one that defines the research problems and projects.  So, by adopting a new paradigm, new research problems emerge and, perhaps, the old one's--now, explained away by the new paradigm--dissolve.  


As an example, we can point to the annihilation of the evolutionary model in biology by the intelligent design model of the Church of the Flying Spaghetti Monster.  To take one example, previously, evolutionary biologists occupied their time trying to figure out how light sensitive patches on simple organisms evolved into the modern complex eye.  Now, under the new correct paradigm they realized this was a false problem and are instead focusing their research energy on trying to figure out how eyeballs evolved from meatballs.  


To learn about this new paradigm here's the link...http://www.venganza.org/2011/07/meatball-eyes/

Is Scientific Progress Cumulative or Revolutionary? Kuhn Part 1

Notes and Thoughts on Thomas Kuhn's The Nature and Necessity of Scientific Revolutions

Favourite Quote: "...whatever its force, the status of the  circular argument is only that of persuasion.  It cannot be made logically or even probabilistically compelling for those who refuse to step into the circle."

Overview

Kuhn's view of how science works is that in order for there to be scientific development, one scientific paradigm must be "overthrown" by a new mutually exclusive paradigm.  His position is in contrast to the view that science develops incrementally and cumulatively.  In short this is about whether scientific progress is best described as evolution or revolution. 

The Nature of a Scientific Revolution

Scientific revolution? Vas ist das?  Obviously, it's a revolution in which everyone wears lab coats.  Oddly, Kuhn has a different idea of what it means.  I want to skip though this part fairly quickly soz we can get to the meat of the issue.  Basically, Kuhn wants to drahr an analogy between political and scientific revolutions.  

Quick definition of terms:  by scientific paradigm, I mean an overarching theory upon which other sub-theories depend/are embedded.  Examples of paradigm theories are Newtonian physics, phlogiston theory, kinetic molecular theory, and, since it's Darwin day today (yay!) we should, of course, include evolution.  

The first parallel is that political revolutions are brought about by a growing belief by a portion of the population that the institutions don't adequately solve the problems that those institutions are designed to solve, and that often the institutions themselves partly contribute to the problem.  In short, substitute "paradigm" for every instance of "institution" and you have Kuhn's view of how scientific revolutions come about.  

The second parallel is that political revolutions are partly about changing institutions in ways that those institutions, by definition, prohibit.  So, for a revolution to be successful, the initial institutions must fundamentally change.  This implies (as we are seeing in Egypt, for example) that there will be a transition periode where it's not clear what institutions are doing the governing.  Will the pharaohs maintain power and continue to build pyramids or will the Muslims take over and build mosques?  

Uncertainty will prevail for a while but eventually, individuals will have to choose one set of institutions over another; and one set of institutions will become de facto.  During this period of uncertainty there will be mass campaigns of persuasion--often violent.  Again, substitue "paradigm" for every instance of "institution" and you get Kuhn's view of scientific revolutions.  

One last note is that, when we are talking about competing sets of institutions there is no objective standard to which we can appeal to choose one over the other.  The same goes for scientific paradigms. Kuhn' s not talking about cases where there's overwhelming evidence in favour of one theory, but cases where both paradigms can explain most of the phenomena it aims to describe.  The contention of one group is that the way that one paradigm explains things is be preferred.

To summarize, except for the fact that scientific revolutions are often more violent and bloody than political revolutions, Kuhn's basic analogy is that there are significant parallels between the two types.  The analogy will allow us to conceptualize in a more familiar way how scientific revolutions occur.  Also, these similarities will support his thesis that scientific process requires the destruction of existing theories by new theories; as opposed to the idea that scientific progress is cumulative--i.e., the old is simply modified by the new.

 Lets move on...

Changes in Scientific Paradigms that Support the Revolution Hypothesis 

So, the general situation we are discussing will look something like this:  there are 2 competing paradigms that are both capable of explaining most empirical observations.  We can't point to any particular evidence that favours a paradigm because the evidence is only intelligible within a given paradigm; for instance when I talk about electrons, I'm necessarily invoking the atomic model of matter (i.e., paradigm).  

The Problem of Circularity 

So, check it.  Suppose we lived in a pre-quantum mechanics era.  The standard atomic model is king of the wooooooooorld.  There's no quantum touch healing and no quantum energy healing.  People are dying everywhere.  In short, it's a horrible place.  Now, along come these crazy people that say that understanding matter within the standard atomic model is wrong.  We should consider electrons not to be particles but waves.  

Notice that we can't talk about electrons without pulling in all the rest of the stuff that goes along with the standard atomic model, and we can't talk about quantum energy waves without bringing in the rest of quantum theory.  

The prollem of cirkalairity arises because there isn't a one to one correspondence of terms when discussing competing paradigms.  The consequence is that any argument for a paradigm will necessarily presuppose that paradigm.  As Kuhn says 

"...whatever its force, the status of the  circular argument is only that of persuasion.  It cannot be made logically or even probabilistically compelling for those who refuse to step into the circle."

I'll esplain this in more concrete terms in a bit, but for now, it will suffice to say that cirkalairity is going to be a prollem when a proponent of one paradigm argues with a proponent of a paradigm from another mother.  

I lied.  One more thing about cirkalairity:  A further prollem that derives from the cirkalairity is that logic and empirical evidence alone will not be sufficient to persuade the relevant community toward a particular paradigm.  The obvious question then is, how is it decided when one paradigm gets replaced by another?  Do scientists arm wrestle over it?  Do the cleanest lab coats win?  How?

What About New Discoveries?

It's possible that a new discovery could push opinion one way or another but it's going to depend on the nature of the discovery.  Consider our paradigm about what is required in an environment for life to exist.  If life were discovered on the moon--an environment our current paradigm holds as hostile to (native) life--we'd have to change our paradigm.  But if life were discovered in the unknown reaches of the universe, we'd have to know more about that environment before our paradigm changed.  

Similarly, sometimes new discoveries connect previously unconnected theories.  This is the case with the theory of energy conservation which links dynamics, chemistry, alectricity, optics, and thermal energy.

In short, new discoveries do not guarantee support for one paradigm over another.  Sometimes they are compatible with both, inconclusive, or connect the previously unconnected.   

Importantly, new discoveries reveal something new about the natural order of the world, but do nothing to influence our decision regarding the preferred theoretical framework within which to describe the discovery.  

What About Science as a Cumulative Enterprise?

Why all this crazy talk about revolutionary overthrow of paradigms?  Kuhn's obviously just read too much Marx and Hegel.  Why can't we just say science is cumulative?  You know...we have a theory about something and then we discover something that doesn't fit our theory so we adjust the theory.  This happens over and over.  There are no crazy revolutions going on.  We just take new information in the context of what we know.  When we have to, we adjust our theory so it best fits empirical observation.  

Ok, says Kuhn, I'll grant this is true in normal research.   Scientists wearing lab coats choose for their research projects problems that can be solved with the concepts and instrumental techniques already and close to those already existence.  The direction of their research will be influenced by the phenomena their existing working model predicts or areas of the model that need to be filled in.  This is obvious enough.  Scientists don't just do random research.  There's always some expectation of result which is defined by the paradigm within which they work. 

The consequence of this is that anomalies will be rare to the degree that the working theory incorrectly predicts and/or the scientist incorrectly deduces and/or incorrectly uses his test tubes and bunsen burner.   Otherwise stated, it will be the amount of different types of anomalies and their inability to be assimilated into the prevailing paradigm that give rise to (hehe, I said "give rise") the issue of competing paradigms.  For the existing paradigm, the anomaly will be just that--an anomaly; but a new paradigm might redender the anomaly law-like.  

At some point, given enough or recalcitrant enough anomalies, a new paradigm will be proposed and the people in lab coats will have to decide to choose one or the other.  If they choose the new one, by definition they must reject the other.  Since the rejection of paradigms is what marks revolution, it is Kuhn's model that best describes how scientific progress is made, not the cumulative model.

A further point for Kuhn is that since two paradigms will have, by definition, different logical consequences, they will predict different things.  If the cumulative model is correct and we hold on to our old theory after we have accepted the new one, then we will have differing predictions from within the same scientific field.  But this isn't what happens (when there is consensus), the predictions derived from the new theory will crush the heads of the beliefs of the first, and so, the old theory is necessarily displaced by the new.  This is as opposed the the old theory assimilating the new, and science proceeding in a cumulative fashion.  

So, where we at?  Basically, Kuhn's argument is that scientific progress isn't cumulative but revolutionary.  It requires the rejection of previous theories by new ones, rather than the assimilation of the new by the old.   Part 2 coming up!