Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
2 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,807 Year: 3,064/9,624 Month: 909/1,588 Week: 92/223 Day: 3/17 Hour: 1/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Theory Evolution (not "Theory of Evolution")
macaroniandcheese 
Suspended Member (Idle past 3927 days)
Posts: 4258
Joined: 05-24-2004


Message 3 of 49 (266647)
12-07-2005 11:42 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by Minnemooseus
12-07-2005 2:33 PM


oooh ooh i get to be first.
dear fundies,
please read the structure of scientific revolutions
love,
da couch.
seriously though. scientists learn more when they prove something wrong. you can't prove something right, because of causality. it's impossible to prove causality without omniscience. cause yeah . but. when we prove something wrong, we know what we can cross off the list. when we prove that something might cause something, we're not really that much closer to a solution.
i think it's an inherent difference in thought. they want to be right, we want to eliminate things.
*edit*
This message has been edited by brennakimi, 12-07-2005 11:43 PM

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by Minnemooseus, posted 12-07-2005 2:33 PM Minnemooseus has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 5 by JustinC, posted 12-08-2005 7:17 AM macaroniandcheese has replied

  
macaroniandcheese 
Suspended Member (Idle past 3927 days)
Posts: 4258
Joined: 05-24-2004


Message 6 of 49 (266766)
12-08-2005 9:44 AM
Reply to: Message 5 by JustinC
12-08-2005 7:17 AM


eh. i saw it as a very accurate portrayal of big scientific turnovers like the switch from a ptolemaic to the copernican solarsystem.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 5 by JustinC, posted 12-08-2005 7:17 AM JustinC has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 7 by JustinC, posted 12-08-2005 11:17 AM macaroniandcheese has replied

  
macaroniandcheese 
Suspended Member (Idle past 3927 days)
Posts: 4258
Joined: 05-24-2004


Message 8 of 49 (266812)
12-08-2005 11:28 AM
Reply to: Message 7 by JustinC
12-08-2005 11:17 AM


well. ptolemaic solar system based things still work. in reality, we do view the world differently. both systems are based on observations. just different ones. the sextant still works, and sailors still use it.
i just read a book called the elusive quest continues. it's a polisci book, but it has a great deal of critique of kuhn in it. however, it seems that the problem is not with kuhn, but the translations people make of him. a heliocentric universe is fundamentally incompatible with a terracentric one just as a yec creation is completely incompatible with geology and biological evolution and astrophysics. it is a perfectly reasonable assertion that within paradigms science is progressive but not without. who says we're anywhere close to right?
i think the important thing is to remember that paradigms are huge, not single journal articles (unlike polisci and behavioralism has made it).

This message is a reply to:
 Message 7 by JustinC, posted 12-08-2005 11:17 AM JustinC has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 11 by JustinC, posted 12-08-2005 3:05 PM macaroniandcheese has not replied

  
macaroniandcheese 
Suspended Member (Idle past 3927 days)
Posts: 4258
Joined: 05-24-2004


Message 10 of 49 (266865)
12-08-2005 2:17 PM
Reply to: Message 9 by nwr
12-08-2005 11:57 AM


basically.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 9 by nwr, posted 12-08-2005 11:57 AM nwr has not replied

  
macaroniandcheese 
Suspended Member (Idle past 3927 days)
Posts: 4258
Joined: 05-24-2004


Message 13 of 49 (266886)
12-08-2005 3:26 PM
Reply to: Message 12 by JustinC
12-08-2005 3:22 PM


well see. the thing is that newtonian to special relativity is progressive. it's string theory that may or may not be. if things work additively, then they are progressive. if not, then they are a paradigm shift.
some sciences have not experienced a paradigm shift. i think that's the biggest problem most people see but don't realize. people try to claim that certain discoveries seem like paradigm shifts but aren't.
like i said. the elusive quest continues has a whole chapter on people claiming that they're shifting the paradigm when, in fact, they are not.
a paradigm shift, for example, would be the transfer of our current scientific knowledge to a gaia based one like capra describes.
This message has been edited by brennakimi, 12-08-2005 03:29 PM

i'm worldwide bitch, act like ya'll don't know.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 12 by JustinC, posted 12-08-2005 3:22 PM JustinC has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 14 by JustinC, posted 12-08-2005 3:55 PM macaroniandcheese has replied

  
macaroniandcheese 
Suspended Member (Idle past 3927 days)
Posts: 4258
Joined: 05-24-2004


Message 15 of 49 (266900)
12-08-2005 4:01 PM
Reply to: Message 14 by JustinC
12-08-2005 3:55 PM


i think it does have to be radical. maybe that's cause i read 1970 kuhn. but see. i think 1970 kuhn exists because he maybe wasn't clear enough earlier and people misunderstood him.
i think a bit more reading in the arena gives better light that he's speaking of vast shifts, not little ones.
This message has been edited by brennakimi, 12-08-2005 04:02 PM

i'm worldwide bitch, act like ya'll don't know.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 14 by JustinC, posted 12-08-2005 3:55 PM JustinC has not replied

  
macaroniandcheese 
Suspended Member (Idle past 3927 days)
Posts: 4258
Joined: 05-24-2004


Message 35 of 49 (267577)
12-10-2005 4:08 PM
Reply to: Message 34 by Shamgar
12-10-2005 3:51 PM


Re: A second polite warning
stop being an asshat and find a new thread to post your unrelated garblings.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 34 by Shamgar, posted 12-10-2005 3:51 PM Shamgar has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 36 by AdminNWR, posted 12-10-2005 4:16 PM macaroniandcheese has not replied

  
macaroniandcheese 
Suspended Member (Idle past 3927 days)
Posts: 4258
Joined: 05-24-2004


Message 37 of 49 (267580)
12-10-2005 4:18 PM
Reply to: Message 33 by nwr
12-10-2005 3:33 PM


go with what i know...
international relations is divided into several theory groups. the old standards are realism, idealism, marxism, and a few others.
realism is an understanding based on states acting as rational units with a set state goal. these states interact according to each's power. some theorists like the idea of hegemonic power and some like a balance. these internal arguments are progressive developments based on a paradigm formed by assumptions.
idealism is a view of a global system with independent actors who interact based on power and economics and culture and stuffs.
marxism is kinda like realism except everything is based on economics and specifically the internal contradictions of capitalism that will lead to its failure.
each of these broad theory bases is an extreme standard which forms the entire basis for how theoreticians look at the world. they qualify as paradigms. so do deconstructivism, etc. however. the ideas as to when war will occur and other things are smaller theories that occur within each of the paradigms.
it's really only a word for "larger theory". however, people have gotten carried away with it in the quest for the holy grail that overturns all previous thought.. even in subjects where you're just not gonna get it. then you end up with a discourse that is something like a sieve with a million little gaps in it. i am hoping to fill in those gaps in my career.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 33 by nwr, posted 12-10-2005 3:33 PM nwr has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024