Comments on: Who Said It?, Part the second http://crookedtimber.org/2006/04/05/who-said-it-part-the-second/ Out of the crooked timber of humanity, no straight thing was ever made Sun, 22 Nov 2009 08:12:11 -0800 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.8.6 hourly 1 By: Jonathan Goldberg http://crookedtimber.org/2006/04/05/who-said-it-part-the-second/comment-page-1/#comment-150906 Jonathan Goldberg Fri, 07 Apr 2006 03:39:48 +0000 http://crookedtimber.org/?p=4520#comment-150906 Could any of the right honourable and enlightened academics inform my humble self whether a ‘paradigm shift’ theory has ever explicitly focused on there being an incommensurable change in the understanding of the concepts used to formulate ‘the question’? Yes. In fact, Kuhn cited the experience of his and his students learning to think like e.g. Priestly or a pre-Copernican as the motivation for developing the paradigm shift idea in the first place. Could any of the right honourable and enlightened academics inform my humble self whether a ‘paradigm shift’ theory has ever explicitly focused on there being an incommensurable change in the understanding of the concepts used to formulate ‘the question’?

Yes. In fact, Kuhn cited the experience of his and his students learning to think like e.g. Priestly or a pre-Copernican as the motivation for developing the paradigm shift idea in the first place.

]]> By: Sirocco http://crookedtimber.org/2006/04/05/who-said-it-part-the-second/comment-page-1/#comment-150823 Sirocco Thu, 06 Apr 2006 15:17:00 +0000 http://crookedtimber.org/?p=4520#comment-150823 Well, I'm not a specialist here, but <a href="http://philsci.com/book7-6.htm" rel="nofollow">this discussion</a> is concise and clarifying. Well, I’m not a specialist here, but this discussion is concise and clarifying.

]]> By: david http://crookedtimber.org/2006/04/05/who-said-it-part-the-second/comment-page-1/#comment-150811 david Thu, 06 Apr 2006 13:22:44 +0000 http://crookedtimber.org/?p=4520#comment-150811 It's a great book, but I've never been able to quite get it. I suppose I should read some criticism and be told what to think: any suggestions? It’s a great book, but I’ve never been able to quite get it. I suppose I should read some criticism and be told what to think: any suggestions?

]]> By: Hieronymus bosch http://crookedtimber.org/2006/04/05/who-said-it-part-the-second/comment-page-1/#comment-150800 Hieronymus bosch Thu, 06 Apr 2006 12:20:17 +0000 http://crookedtimber.org/?p=4520#comment-150800 Could any of the right honourable and enlightened academics inform my humble self whether a 'paradigm shift' theory has ever explicitly focused on there being an incommensurable change in the understanding of the concepts used to formulate 'the question'? I suppose this would be opposed to the quote from Dewey in the first post about "getting over" the entire 'question,' or, I guess, the view that these changes are due to dying generations. A related query may be whether these views, including Kuhn's, allow for a mere change in the meaning (or understanding) of key concepts in the relevant questions to explain away the sense we have of progress being made. It just seems that some theories that are now viewed as ridiculous - e.g. Aristotle's theory of vision - might thus potentially be reconciled with what we now know to be the correct scientific explanation... Could any of the right honourable and enlightened academics inform my humble self whether a ‘paradigm shift’ theory has ever explicitly focused on there being an incommensurable change in the understanding of the concepts used to formulate ‘the question’? I suppose this would be opposed to the quote from Dewey in the first post about “getting over” the entire ‘question,’ or, I guess, the view that these changes are due to dying generations. A related query may be whether these views, including Kuhn’s, allow for a mere change in the meaning (or understanding) of key concepts in the relevant questions to explain away the sense we have of progress being made. It just seems that some theories that are now viewed as ridiculous – e.g. Aristotle’s theory of vision – might thus potentially be reconciled with what we now know to be the correct scientific explanation…

]]> By: Sirocco http://crookedtimber.org/2006/04/05/who-said-it-part-the-second/comment-page-1/#comment-150792 Sirocco Thu, 06 Apr 2006 10:11:10 +0000 http://crookedtimber.org/?p=4520#comment-150792 Indeed quite a striking quote. Among philosophers of science, the real John the Baptist is <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Norwood_Russell_Hanson" rel="nofollow">Norwood Russell-Hanson</a>, most notably in <i>Patterns of Discovery</i> (1958), where even the title insists on the importance of what Popper refused to study. Sadly, the good Norwood was a keen amateur pilot with a penchant for aerodynamical as well as philosophical innovation, hence his modest life span (1925–1967) and bibliography. Not that Kuhn made especially good use of his longevity. Indeed quite a striking quote.

Among philosophers of science, the real John the Baptist is Norwood Russell-Hanson, most notably in Patterns of Discovery (1958), where even the title insists on the importance of what Popper refused to study.

Sadly, the good Norwood was a keen amateur pilot with a penchant for aerodynamical as well as philosophical innovation, hence his modest life span (1925–1967) and bibliography. Not that Kuhn made especially good use of his longevity.

]]>