Old 10-13-2006, 05:48 AM   #1
coberst
FFR Player
 
Join Date: May 2004
Posts: 256
Default Normal Science is a Puzzle

Normal science is a puzzle

Normal science is a puzzle-solving enterprise. Normal science is a slow accumulation of knowledge by a methodical step-by-step process undertaken by a group of scientists.

‘Paradigm’ is a word that was given great meaning and clarity by Thomas Kuhn in his book “The Structure of Scientific Revolutions”.

“One of the things a scientific community acquires with a paradigm is a criterion for choosing problems that, while the paradigm is taken for granted, can be assumed to have solutions…A paradigm can, for that matter, even insulate the community from those socially important problems that are not reducible to the puzzle form, because they cannot be stated in terms of the conceptual and instrumental tools the paradigm supplies.”

The author notes that all “real science is normally a habit-governed, puzzle-solving activity” and not a philosophical activity. Paradigm and not hypothesis is the active meaning for the ‘new image of science’. Paradigm is neither a theory nor a metaphysical viewpoint.

Kuhn’s new image of science—the paradigm—is an artifact (a human achievement), a way of seeing, and is a set of scientific problem solving habits. Normal science means research based upon one or more past achievements ‘that some particular community acknowledges for a time as supplying the foundation for its further practice…and these achievements are sufficiently unprecedented to attract an enduring group pf adherents away from competing modes of scientific activity’ furthermore they are sufficiently open-ended to leave all sorts of problems for the redefined group of practitioners to solve’. Such achievements Kuhn defines as paradigm.

“A puzzle-solving paradigm, unlike a puzzle-solving hypothetico-deductive system, has also got to be a concrete ‘way of seeing’.”

Kuhn constantly refers to the ‘gestalt switch’ when discussing the switch in reference from one paradigm to another as ‘re-seeing’ action. Each paradigm has been constructed to be a ‘way-of-seeing’. Here Kuhn is speaking not about what the paradigm is but how the paradigm is used. He is defining a paradigm as a newly developed puzzle-solving artifact that is used analogically to understand another artifact; for example, using wire and beads strung together to facilitate understanding the protein molecule.

I think that we place “Science” on too high a pedestal and thereby distort our comprehension of political and social problems. We cannot solve social and political problems like we solve the questions formed by the normal sciences.

Do you think that the techniques of normal science are directly applicable for solving the problems of society?
coberst is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-13-2006, 07:50 PM   #2
studmuffin51306
FFR Player
 
studmuffin51306's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Posts: 149
Send a message via AIM to studmuffin51306
Default Re: Normal Science is a Puzzle

I love what you are saying.

From a religious standpoint I find Science extremely questionable. Scientists are attempting to understand and play with something created by the ultimate being with infinite knowledge. I'm not going to say that they are making themselves God, but I think that today's scientists are attempting to grasp something out of their reach. Science is nothing but educated guesses to me. All "proven" aspects of Science are just postulates, they haven't been able to disprove it and it seems correct. The assumption that something will always be the same in every situation is a very dangerous one. As far as we know, space is infinite, and with infinite space comes infinite possibilities. When we say that splitting an atom will cause a chain reaction of neutrons splitting other atoms, how do we know that there are neutrons in the atoms we're splitting? Atoms are entirely to tiny to weigh, and with no charge there's not really a way to be positive. We wouldn't even end up with a poof of smoke in that situation. This is not likely, but completely possible in our infinite universe. I wonder how often someone dies from relying too heavily on Science. I think that life should be taken head on, and not be affected too harshly by what has been observed in the past.
__________________
studmuffin51306 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-13-2006, 09:37 PM   #3
Cavernio
sunshine and rainbows
FFR Veteran
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Age: 38
Posts: 1,987
Default Re: Normal Science is a Puzzle

Well, I disagree with studmuffin. Firstly, as far as we know, space isn't infinite. Also, by you saying that atoms are far too small to 'weigh' as some sort of support for what you say, it isn't really, because from what you're saying, weighing something isn't a means of being certain of something anyways. Neither is seeing, or touching, or anything else. I'm sure there's a philosophical term for your stance muffin, if I just studied any philosophy. Also, the size of atoms has been extrapolated from other measures beyond 'weighing'. No, I don't know what they are. Yes, I have 'faith' that they're correct.

More into line with what cob was saying, and tying in with what muffin said, if we somehow manage to create something or do something by using the information that science has given us so far, then that to me marks success for science. For example, the knowledge of the forces of the world is and how it affects things in outer space, has caused us to successfully do things like make space stations, have satellites, and launch space shuttles. These are things we knew how to do not because they were done before, or something we managed to explain, but something we tried based on the what we've learned from other things. Nothing close to such successes have happened in social sciences. And this doesn't necessarily mean that things like that won't happen, but it is something to contemplate.
But for things like the social sciences, and societal problems, the way science is going with them right now is not necessarily going to work, I don't think. As Kuhn points out in some other works of his (I think its him, it might've been someone else who just used Kuhn's ideas), social sciences simply like to adopt certain stances on a few dichotomous ideas, and those together make up the 'paradigm of the day' so to speak. Right now, social science is very much like other science. One of these ideas it has is to be reductionist instead of holistic. As anyone who has ever stopped to think about why people do certain things, why societies and politics work the way they do, there are sooo many factors involved. The tree you'd need to code to create something akin to society or even an individual, would be astronomical. Even if we do find all the information needed to create, for lack of a term, an artificial society, no one would be able to understand it enough to do anything with it. This next part is something which has been floating around in my mind for awhile actually, and it's about knowledge which exists compared to knowledge a person has. There's so much information out there, so much fact and science, that individually, we will never be able to grasp it all. I just see this reductionist version of social science becoming something like that. All the information there, but no one who comprehends it all, and no one able to explain it all. And in a way, that's kinda the state we're in BEFORE we ever start analyzing things. We know holistically a lot of things, we know there's information and data out there, but we just haven't discovered it yet. But if we can't access it or understand it once it's already 'discovered', we're in the same boat.
By choosing to not be so reductionist in our perception of things, by choosing to holistically create new meaning to clumps of things, we automatically by-pass having to know the finer details of something in order to understand it. But in the same way that I feel reducing social sciences will bring them to a level beyond our comprehension, I can also see the opposite happening, where information could become, uh, too holistic, and again pass beyond our grasp of understanding.

I read in one of my 4th year psychology seminars (where I also happened to learn and read about Kuhn), that someone who understands people and society enough to be able to write a play or a novel that makes sense to the audience, has grasped the most important aspect of people. This struck me, partially because it fit into my own, unvoiced opinion that the level of training necessary to become a psychologist (therapist) isn't necessarily going to make someone a good psychologist, and also because it just makes so much sense while downplaying the benefit of psychology, yet said by a psychologist.

As far as being able to solve the problems of society? I don't think anything will be able to solve our problems, but then again, that's probably me being far too general.
Cavernio is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-13-2006, 11:19 PM   #4
jewpinthethird
(The Fat's Sabobah)
FFR Music ProducerFFR Veteran
 
jewpinthethird's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Palm Springs, California
Posts: 11,711
Send a message via AIM to jewpinthethird
Default Re: Normal Science is a Puzzle

Science is questionable, that's the point: to question everything.

I agree with what studmuffin stated, but science is based on observation. What mankind knows about the "universe" (for all we know, we could be living in a multiverse) is but a drop in the ocean. However, unlike dogmatic religions, science does not claim to know all the answers and nothing is set in stone. Theories and laws can be disproven.

It's one thing to take on an understanding of the Cosmos, but humans are mere animals, and despite how complex we may be, we are simple creatures of habit. Of course, our society is ever evolving, but our basic needs and desires remain unchanged since the beginning of time (that's why Shakespeare universal).

However, it is also in man's nature to fear change. Theology and dogma breed ignorance and as long as they remain wedged in the minds of man, I don't think anything can be solved.
jewpinthethird is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-14-2006, 06:33 AM   #5
coberst
FFR Player
 
Join Date: May 2004
Posts: 256
Default Re: Normal Science is a Puzzle

Cavernio says—“Nothing close to such successes have happened in social sciences. And this doesn't necessarily mean that things like that won't happen, but it is something to contemplate.”

Therein lays the rub. We are very good at instrumental rationality and lousy in matters that require communicative action rationality. Our ability to keep up with our natural sciences insofar as understanding and communicating in order to solve multilogical problems may doom us to perdition.

We must quickly learn how to control our mastery of technology or technology will drive us over the abyss.

If we cannot harness the wasted intellectual power of our adults to help in this effort we are in trouble. We do not have the time for several generations to pass before we meet our problems head on.
coberst is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-14-2006, 06:15 PM   #6
Cavernio
sunshine and rainbows
FFR Veteran
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Age: 38
Posts: 1,987
Default Re: Normal Science is a Puzzle

cobherst: Do you really think that society of today, because of technological advances, is somehow closer to doom than societies were 2000 years ago? I'm not convinced that the society we live in today is worse off than it almost always has been. This seems to be a common thread that so many people bring up, but I see no evidence. As kilga likes to say, yes, I need everything spelled out to me.
Cavernio is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-15-2006, 03:00 AM   #7
coberst
FFR Player
 
Join Date: May 2004
Posts: 256
Default Re: Normal Science is a Puzzle

Quote:
Originally Posted by Cavernio View Post
cobherst: Do you really think that society of today, because of technological advances, is somehow closer to doom than societies were 2000 years ago? I'm not convinced that the society we live in today is worse off than it almost always has been. This seems to be a common thread that so many people bring up, but I see no evidence. As kilga likes to say, yes, I need everything spelled out to me.
I am confident that our technology has put into the hands of a few the ability to do fantastic damage to all of us. Also it has placed into the hands of the many the abilty to destroy the planet just through apathy.

When we were fighting with sticks and stones we were safe. When we did not have the power to destroy our own planet we were safe.
coberst is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-16-2006, 02:05 AM   #8
Grandiagod
FFR Player
 
Grandiagod's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Feaefaw
Age: 32
Posts: 6,122
Send a message via AIM to Grandiagod Send a message via MSN to Grandiagod
Default Re: Normal Science is a Puzzle

Quote:
Originally Posted by studmuffin51306 View Post
I love what you are saying.

From a religious standpoint I find Science extremely questionable. Scientists are attempting to understand and play with something created by the ultimate being with infinite knowledge. I'm not going to say that they are making themselves God, but I think that today's scientists are attempting to grasp something out of their reach. Science is nothing but educated guesses to me. All "proven" aspects of Science are just postulates, they haven't been able to disprove it and it seems correct. The assumption that something will always be the same in every situation is a very dangerous one. As far as we know, space is infinite, and with infinite space comes infinite possibilities. When we say that splitting an atom will cause a chain reaction of neutrons splitting other atoms, how do we know that there are neutrons in the atoms we're splitting? Atoms are entirely to tiny to weigh, and with no charge there's not really a way to be positive. We wouldn't even end up with a poof of smoke in that situation. This is not likely, but completely possible in our infinite universe. I wonder how often someone dies from relying too heavily on Science. I think that life should be taken head on, and not be affected too harshly by what has been observed in the past.
Science attempts to find facts about the universe. Yes, there are educated guesses, but these are made in search of truth. Black holes were theorized before discovered, etc.

Secondly, if you refuse to pay attention to the past you are setting yourself up for some major failures. I mean, if you stuck your hand into a fire yesterday it still will hurt if you do it today.

PS. Atoms can be weighed. (Atomic weight anyone?)
__________________
He who angers you conquers you. ~Elizabeth Kenny
Grandiagod is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply


Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)
 
Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 11:35 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.1
Copyright ©2000 - 2021, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright FlashFlashRevolution