One of my favorite ideas in Structure is Kuhn's observation that contradictory evidence seldom suffices to overturn a scientific theory. Contradictory evidence is the norm. What's required to overturn a scientific theory is both contradictory evidence and a better theory - and even then adoption is often grudging and uneven.
I've found that idea to be very valuable when navigating disagreements at work (and in life generally). Refutation is seldom constructive in isolation - you also need to bring a constructive alternative if you want to keep things moving forward.
I guess that sounds like common sense, but I'm surprised by how often people cleave to exclusively negative argumentation (particularly in political discussions).
> One of my favorite ideas in Structure is Kuhn's observation that contradictory evidence seldom suffices to overturn a scientific theory.
That's not Kuhn's observation. Evidence immediately overturns a theory. What evidence doesn't do is get the scientific establishment to accept the new evidence. It's why paradigm shifts are rare and take a lot of time to happen. In many instances, society simply has to wait for the old to die and the new to gain power.
> (particularly in political discussions).
That was kuhn's point. Science operates more like politics and religion than science. Many times there is no reason, evidence or argument to change poeple's minds. You have to simply wait for the old guard to die off so that the new guard can usher in a paradigm shift.
It's how einstein went to the grave believing "god does not play dice" regardless of all the evidence. And his death moved physics from the deterministic to the nondeterministic world ( paradigm shift ). For all the praise einstein gets, he was wrong about the most important and fundamental aspect of physics.
This is precisely where the antiVax mob failed: they simply wanted to deny the science behind the epidemiology to refuse to vaccinate, and they had no alternate theory beyond lizard-people.
Most of the "but there is no good evidence" arguing is not actually arguing in good faith.
AGW isn't much different. People leap on 0.1C differences and say AHA fail without contextualising it and then argue anyone who contextualising is "lying" or "altering the data"
its a bizarre reductionism, based on autodidact understanding of science. "Because I believe this is the scientific method all the other scientists are not scienting and this is not scientific therefore its trash therefore my theory based on lizard people wins"
I remember in 2000 when journalists asked George W Bush and Al Gore what their favorite books were. Bush said his was The Bible. Al Gore said his was The Structure of Scientific Revolutions by Thomas Kuhn. Probably could have called the election right then.
Yes, and irrespective of our opinions on each book... Reading the Bible lets you connect in some form with the majority of your electorate, while reading Kuhn does not.
Its not undercut at all by not winning the popular vote. 81.6% of the electorate identified as Christian in 2001 and 78% by 2012. Thats a clear majority of the electorate.
Being Christian probably neither means that your favorite book is the bible nor that you would rather vote for somebody whose favorite book is the bible.
No one is saying the Bible is the favorite book of Christians nor that its enough to sway votes. The claim was saying his favorite book was the Bible connected him in some form to a majority of the electorate which it did.
They didn't ask what books both men had read - I suspect Gore has read at least a large chunk of the Bible (he still describes himself as a Baptist to this day). It's just not his favorite book.
I always felt like Palin got done dirty when they asked her what she read. Like obviously this is a trick question, and she hadn’t prepared a good answer for it. Who cares? OTOH, she is a nut, so maybe it was fair to stress her out and see if she cracks.
It's difficult to detect sarcasm online, so here goes:
"What do you read to follow the news?" is an incredibly easy question. Even if she doesn't read any newspaper, she could have just named one. "USA Today" is a pretty safe answer that won't offend anyone. Watching Palin struggle with this basic question was painful.
- "I read the Alaska Daily News" ← Small timer, not ready for national stage
- "I read the New York Times" ← Liberal bias, piss off your base
- "I read USA Today" ← A newspaper for babies
- "I read everything" ← Cop out answer and nobody buys it (which is what she said)
- "I read the Wall Street Journal" ← Actually this would be a really good answer because it's national scale and non-liberal, but it's hard to come up with in the moment
The whole point of the question is "reveal something about yourself" but whatever you reveal has positives and negatives that you need to weigh out beforehand. The point of being in the limelight longer is you can burn all your bad answers earlier before anyone cares about them and figure out your strategy.
Someone who feels challenged by the question, "What newspaper do you read?" is not ready for national politics. This is one step above, "What's your favorite food?"
Nobody is going to be that offended by what paper you read. I suggested "USA Today" because it's about the blandest paper you can pick, and nobody can really object to it. Your suggestion, the Wall Street Journal, is not at all difficult to come up with in the moment. It's probably the 2nd or 3rd most influential paper in the US.
Instead of just naming a newspaper, she froze like a deer in the headlights. That just confirmed what many people already thought - she probably reads nothing.
She absolutely read the Alaskan newspaper. It’s silly to suggest otherwise. She may be a nut, but she managed to get elected, and that involves understanding local politics.
asking a vice presidential candidate what they read is not a trick question and if you think it is I'm super curious what you think a vice president does
Wow, you are very lucky to be continually finding books that leave such an impact on you that your _favorite_ book keeps changing. For example, for me, when I was 17, I read what I consider to be ‘The Great American Novel’. No other book has been able to replace that for me.
I think federalism is important. If doing a popular vote, why even have states? A representative republic? Going by popular vote seems like something youd have without states and with a direct democracy.
> "Scientific knowledge, like language, is intrinsically the common property of a group or else nothing at all. To understand it we shall need to know the special
characteristics of the groups that create and use it."
I really don't know about this - the divisions that humans have created in their study of science are pretty artificial, i.e. physics/chemistry/biology, and seem to have more to do with academic politics and funding opportunities than the natural world itself. Nature doesn't care about such divisions, not in the least.
Mathematics is something of a special case, in that its results (and motivations) are as relevant to the world of art as they are to the world of science.
> do you need to know anything about Roman culture to understand Latin grammar? No.
But you do need to be fluent in Roman culture to understand Latin jokes, puns, similes, metaphors, and all the other things that go into meaning.
For a more modern example: Observe how British English can turn almost any noun into an insult in much the same way that this just doesn't work in American. Or how a Californian can say "this is not my favorite" and we all know they mean "this is awful". Or how Australians can use "you c*nts" as a term of endearment, but Americans cannot. Meanwhile Americans can use motherf*cker as both a term of endearment and an insult depending on situation.
And who could forget the subtle difference between "You are shit" and "You are the shit". Where does that show up in grammar?
edit: oh here’s a good one! The phrase “I love you” changes meaning when you say it to family, friends, coworkers, strangers, performers on stage, etc. Some languages even use different words for those meanings, but they all translate to “love” In English.
You absolutely cannot understand the full meaning of language without understanding the speaker’s context.
> But you do need to be fluent in Roman culture to understand Latin jokes, puns, similes, metaphors, and all the other things that go into meaning.
You need to understand Roman culture to understand Roman jokes, but that is a property of Roman culture, not the Latin language. You could translate American jokes into Latin, and then a hypothetical American who can speak Latin but doesn't know anything about Roman culture would be able to understand and find them funny.
Of course, you can't understand the full meaning of an utterance that someone utters in a particular context without understanding who that person is and what the context is. A Roman who somehow spoke perfectly grammatical English would still probably be hard for us to understand. But that's a property of an utterance, not the language itself.
I completely understand what you're saying, but I think the problem you run into when trying to make too hard a dividing line is that it's very hard to describe precisely where "language" stops and where "culture" begins.
For example, in the sentence "I think you should do that", with an emphasis on the "you", what is the grammatical role of that emphasis? It's not necessarily something you'll find explicitly in an English textbook, but it is conveying important meaning here. It's also cultural - I will use different forms of emphasis of I'm from the US or from the UK. In the US I might speak louder for emphasis, in the UK I might speak more slowly for emphasis, or use a different word choice.
But what happens if I'm culturally British, in the UK, a native English speaker, but speaking a sign language like BSL? Well then I'm going to use a different form of emphasis again, because BSL has its own ways of indicating emphasis. So clearly emphasis is also related to the language one speaks - my culture hasn't changed, after all!
This is the issue with splitting language to into a cultural part and a linguistic part - too much of language straddles both sides. You might say that the core of a language is its grammar, but Scots English and AAVE are both grammatically different from Standard British English, and yet the differences there are as much cultural as purely linguistic.
In principle, I get what you mean - you can learn all the words and the grammar of a language from a textbook without knowing anything about the culture behind that language. But if you can't use the language to communicate fluently with native speakers of that language, have you really learned it? Your time traveling Roman asking for the portal rather than the door has basically just invented his own dialect, not learned English to any meaningful degree.
> Your time traveling Roman asking for the portal rather than the door has basically just invented his own dialect, not learned English to any meaningful degree.
A fun argument for how important this is: The only reason we have Middle Earth, Lord of The Rings, etc is because Tolkien needed a world and a history to embed his languages in. Otherwise they couldn’t have any real meaning. He could construct the grammar, yes, but not the semantics.
Even something as simple as what our shortest words encode tells a lot about our culture or history. We use short words for things we say often.
I'm having trouble understanding this comment. You seem to be grasping at one of the central points the author is raising, but you've phrased your comment as if what you've said is in opposition. Nature doesn't care about divisions, but our ways of communicating and sharing scientific knowledge are shaped by them - often to our detriment.
I suppose the issue is that the text could have been named 'The Structure of Academic Revolutions' which might be closer to its intent and meaning?
Nevertheless the natural world, the object of scientific study, should remain the focus of attention, and the fundamental approaches - observation, experiment, theoretical construction - haven't really changed at all since the concept was invented.
Richard Rhodes is fascinating on Polyani. He viewed the physicists as modern day guildsmen: you achieved merit as a journeyman scientist by proving to other scientists you could do good work and then.. you were one.
He also hung with the economists, it's interesting to read stuff from the early years of the LSE. People get hung up in Hayek but Polyani was hanging out in the same rooms.
I find a software parallel here. When building new systems in poorly understood domains, you can't proceed as if you already know the paradigm. Instead you have to poke around and try things until you find a working paradigm.
Apropos of a posthumous collection of his unpublished writings, there was an interesting book review of Kuhn's life and context around _Structure_: https://archive.is/Yr4B9 It was all quite different than I had expected, and sorta illustrates the challenges of intellectual theorizing when it goes 'viral', so to speak.
I started reading it a long time ago but stopped. Good book. All I can essentially remember is the claim (which seams fair) that scientific progress is not linear. And doesn’t necessarily build off itself. Sometimes new paradigms emerge and we completely discard the previous scientific consensus.
Extended copyright harms the public domain, but the only realistic solution is for authors or publishers to believe in the common good more than their own profits. That does happen: Wikipedia for example is licensed under CC-BY-SA. But then you have Jimmy Wales pleading for donations regularly. Authors and publishers depend on copyright for well deserved income. In the US the balance of interests has swung so far away from the common good toward the author’s and publisher’s interests that for example interesting parody literature like The Wind Done Gone (a parody of Gone with the Wind having the same characters) are suppressed.
The Structure of Scientific Revolutions is one of the best books I ever read.
I've found that idea to be very valuable when navigating disagreements at work (and in life generally). Refutation is seldom constructive in isolation - you also need to bring a constructive alternative if you want to keep things moving forward.
I guess that sounds like common sense, but I'm surprised by how often people cleave to exclusively negative argumentation (particularly in political discussions).