Actually, my use of the term "paradigm shift" was a deliberate allusion to the fact that I had read Kuhn. You simply missed it. Even though later on in the same post, I discussed Kuhn specifically. The Structure of Scientific Revolutions is not even a particularly difficult read.
Based on what you have written, though, I suspect you might find your views more closely aligned with Steven Weinberg, Nobel Prize winner in physics (1979), and author of Facing Up: Science and Its Cultural Adversaries. He considers Kuhn one of those adversaries.
That's the end of my part of this discussion. You haven't offered anything fresh, and some of it is nonsense. I also find your attempts at scientific homiletics to be tiresome. I'm moving on.
I believe that if he had meant to say "if you want to find the answers to your questions, there are many books written on these subjects", he would have said that. My opinion is still that he meant to be insulting.
As to whether we are talking experts, or laypeople, the question that comes to mind most quickly is, "who gets to choose who qualifies as an expert?" In any case, my issue has always been with the '95% certainty' aspect of this announcement. Regarding your mention of uncertainty (as in Heisenberg's example) this is, in fact, my point. If we can't measure multiple variables accurately, how can we account for the innumerable potential variables in measuring the age of the universe? Sure, standard deviation might allow for the age, given enough measurements, but what about the percentage of certainty - particularly if only one yardstick is being used? How can we pick a number like.95, or any other number?
In regard to the creationism vs. science camps, I am not saying that it is possible to hold both views. I am saying that one must always consider the possibility that one is wrong. Be prepared for the pardigm shift.
Tangentially, I should mention that, while we are most familiar with extreme views on this subject, there are middle views. Many people, including scientists, believe in the "Intelligent Design" theory for example.
Finally, on the subject of "Is the theory good enough to answer my questions", Kuhn writes that truth cannot be a criterion of scientific theories. Therefore all theories are equal. While that may seem ridiculous on a human level, it simply means that your acceptance or rejection of the theory is predicated on what makes sense to you. It might not be what makes sense to me.
First let's deal with the whole "read a book" thing. Do you honestly believe that he has never read a book? It would be easier to have a decent discussion if you would refrain from being insulting.
From my perspective the argument is that what some would choose to see as theory, some are reporting as almost-fact. As long as we are limited by our own imperfections (ego, arrogance, the instruments for measurement that were designed by imperfect humans), all will remain theory. And we will be limited to theory for a long time, as in possibly forever.
Both camps in this discussion should keep their minds firmly open. True, it's less comfortable, but unless you are responsible for the creation of the universe, you must be prepared to have someone else refute your set of beliefs. That means even if it's the godless secular humanists or the backward creationists.
If I remember correctly, the original issue many had was with the very unspecific period that was cited, and the supposed accuracy that surrounded the claim. I'd have to say that it was simply irresponsible, and rather egotistical. Scientists, and the people who report on their activities are only human. Darn.
The problem is, to be generous, one of perspective. In my more judgmental moods, I say that we humans are arrogant. The natural world is incredibly complex, and animal behavior is definitely at the pinnacle of complexity. Animals and plants (I can't say re: fungi) at all levels of perceived development have been shown to communicate with each other. They may do this via vocalizations or scent, but they do it nonetheless. Vocalizations are not proof of intelligence, it's just that from our myopic perspective, we find it comfortable to judge the rest of the world from the throne we have built for ourselves.
My current view is that the more we attempt to explain our superiority, the more we reveal that we are just one among many of the complex and as yet unexplainable creatures on this planet.
I am thankful for the ongoing research, and hope it never stops; but let's keep in mind that the discovery of a shared characteristic between ourselves and another creature does not elevate the creature. He is what he is, and the same can be said for us. And perhaps (gasp) he is superior to us, in ways we are simply too self-absorbed to percieve.
We are ever students. There are no experts.
An increasingly large body of research is showing that birds, in particular the larger parrots and members of the family corvidae (crows, ravens, and kin),are capable of learning by observing, problem-solving, and teaching each other.
Either there is a flaw in the definition of culture, or there is a considerable degree of arrogance in our belief that only primates have intelligence (or, slightly off-topic, humans have souls). Not all groups of people believe this, BTW. Many native, non-industrial human cultures believed that animals were intelligent and possessed souls. We like to call those peoples "uncivilized."
Idea for political Ad:
Call Hilary Clinton and tell her you don't want her supporting piracy!!!
(paid for by the committee to preserve the public domain, copyright 2003)
Slashdot Mirror
Actually, my use of the term "paradigm shift" was a deliberate allusion to the fact that I had read Kuhn. You simply missed it. Even though later on in the same post, I discussed Kuhn specifically. The Structure of Scientific Revolutions is not even a particularly difficult read.
Based on what you have written, though, I suspect you might find your views more closely aligned with Steven Weinberg, Nobel Prize winner in physics (1979), and author of Facing Up: Science and Its Cultural Adversaries. He considers Kuhn one of those adversaries.
That's the end of my part of this discussion. You haven't offered anything fresh, and some of it is nonsense. I also find your attempts at scientific homiletics to be tiresome. I'm moving on.
I believe that if he had meant to say "if you want to find the answers to your questions, there are many books written on these subjects", he would have said that. My opinion is still that he meant to be insulting.
.95, or any other number?
As to whether we are talking experts, or laypeople, the question that comes to mind most quickly is, "who gets to choose who qualifies as an expert?" In any case, my issue has always been with the '95% certainty' aspect of this announcement. Regarding your mention of uncertainty (as in Heisenberg's example) this is, in fact, my point. If we can't measure multiple variables accurately, how can we account for the innumerable potential variables in measuring the age of the universe? Sure, standard deviation might allow for the age, given enough measurements, but what about the percentage of certainty - particularly if only one yardstick is being used? How can we pick a number like
In regard to the creationism vs. science camps, I am not saying that it is possible to hold both views. I am saying that one must always consider the possibility that one is wrong. Be prepared for the pardigm shift.
Tangentially, I should mention that, while we are most familiar with extreme views on this subject, there are middle views. Many people, including scientists, believe in the "Intelligent Design" theory for example.
Finally, on the subject of "Is the theory good enough to answer my questions", Kuhn writes that truth cannot be a criterion of scientific theories. Therefore all theories are equal. While that may seem ridiculous on a human level, it simply means that your acceptance or rejection of the theory is predicated on what makes sense to you. It might not be what makes sense to me.
First let's deal with the whole "read a book" thing. Do you honestly believe that he has never read a book? It would be easier to have a decent discussion if you would refrain from being insulting. From my perspective the argument is that what some would choose to see as theory, some are reporting as almost-fact. As long as we are limited by our own imperfections (ego, arrogance, the instruments for measurement that were designed by imperfect humans), all will remain theory. And we will be limited to theory for a long time, as in possibly forever. Both camps in this discussion should keep their minds firmly open. True, it's less comfortable, but unless you are responsible for the creation of the universe, you must be prepared to have someone else refute your set of beliefs. That means even if it's the godless secular humanists or the backward creationists. If I remember correctly, the original issue many had was with the very unspecific period that was cited, and the supposed accuracy that surrounded the claim. I'd have to say that it was simply irresponsible, and rather egotistical. Scientists, and the people who report on their activities are only human. Darn.
The problem is, to be generous, one of perspective. In my more judgmental moods, I say that we humans are arrogant. The natural world is incredibly complex, and animal behavior is definitely at the pinnacle of complexity. Animals and plants (I can't say re: fungi) at all levels of perceived development have been shown to communicate with each other. They may do this via vocalizations or scent, but they do it nonetheless. Vocalizations are not proof of intelligence, it's just that from our myopic perspective, we find it comfortable to judge the rest of the world from the throne we have built for ourselves. My current view is that the more we attempt to explain our superiority, the more we reveal that we are just one among many of the complex and as yet unexplainable creatures on this planet. I am thankful for the ongoing research, and hope it never stops; but let's keep in mind that the discovery of a shared characteristic between ourselves and another creature does not elevate the creature. He is what he is, and the same can be said for us. And perhaps (gasp) he is superior to us, in ways we are simply too self-absorbed to percieve. We are ever students. There are no experts.
An increasingly large body of research is showing that birds, in particular the larger parrots and members of the family corvidae (crows, ravens, and kin),are capable of learning by observing, problem-solving, and teaching each other. Either there is a flaw in the definition of culture, or there is a considerable degree of arrogance in our belief that only primates have intelligence (or, slightly off-topic, humans have souls). Not all groups of people believe this, BTW. Many native, non-industrial human cultures believed that animals were intelligent and possessed souls. We like to call those peoples "uncivilized."
Idea for political Ad: Call Hilary Clinton and tell her you don't want her supporting piracy!!! (paid for by the committee to preserve the public domain, copyright 2003)