This is interesting. Not a mention of Kuhn or Feyerabend, but I presume this is what the writer is getting at and disagreeing with over notions of revelatory scientific explosions and paradigm shifts. No no, they say, most revisions are small or turn out to be mistakes. If the views of Kuhn and Feyerabend have filtered down and become pop myths not reflecting the REAL science, then the possibilities are that: 1. The writer is self-satisfied and prone to dogmatism, as many scientists may also be. This could actually be dangerous. Much of the Anglo-American culture is extremely conservative at present - both ideologically and creatively. There are relatively few dreams about the future or defining new theories. 2. Kuhn and Feyerabend are simply part of a long string of western thinkers who are taking their historical models from the Judaeo-Christian tradition (as are Marx, Hegel, most science fiction writers) and its explosive view of qualitative age-change. These do not reflect how the history of man and his ideas ACTUALLY work, which is far more multifaceted and complex and..well... slow. And well people are used to huge cosmological battles from the movies so the media want to convince them this is so. 3. The writer has little to say about contradictory research on issues. It is as though only a few things here and there are disputed. If this were so, thered be no grant money, no PhDs and...well no scientists (or other researchers). This article seems merely to say: calm down anti-science lobby.Its not our fault you all want something revolutionary because youre bored, pessimistic, have watched too many movies about mad scientists and consider us merely technocrats. theconversation/how-myths-and-tabloids-feed-on-anomalies-in-science-29337
Posted on: Tue, 07 Oct 2014 03:19:50 +0000
Trending Topics
Recently Viewed Topics
© 2015