The Structure of Scientific Revolutions

[VirginiaHuguenot]

Has anyone read Thomas Kuhn's The Structure of Scientific Revolutions? I have a friend who will be lecturing on this book from a Christian perspective this summer, dv, and I'd be interested to hear any views on the book from the PB community.

 

[tewilder]

Has anyone read Thomas Kuhn's The Structure of Scientific Revolutions? I have a friend who will be lecturing on this book from a Christian perspective this summer, dv, and I'd be interested to hear any views on the book from the PB community.

Yes, I have read it.

The book was always more popular with scientists than with philosophers of science, who regarded it as secondary and derivative.

Also the book has caught on with some people as a justification for relativism, when it is really just the opposite. In and of itself it is interesting and worth reading.

 

[caddy]

Haven't read it, but it doesn't suprise me a bit, your assessment.

The scientific world rarely thinks there is a whole supporting framework of philosophy and presupposition to their worldview and science, much like the oft quoted--Lewotin piece:

http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/703/

‘We take the side of science in spite of the patent absurdity of some of its constructs, in spite of its failure to fulfill many of its extravagant promises of health and life, in spite of the tolerance of the scientific community for unsubstantiated just-so stories, because we have a prior commitment, a commitment to materialism.​

It is not that the methods and institutions of science somehow compel us to accept a material explanation of the phenomenal world, but, on the contrary, that we are forced by our a priori adherence to material causes to create an apparatus of investigation and a set of concepts that produce material explanations, no matter how counter-intuitive, no matter how mystifying to the uninitiated. Moreover, that materialism is an absolute, for we cannot allow a Divine Foot in the door.​

The eminent Kant scholar Lewis Beck used to say that anyone who could believe in God could believe in anything. To appeal to an omnipotent deity is to allow that at any moment the regularities of nature may be ruptured, that Miracles may happen [but see the difference between origin and operational science—Ed.].’​

Reference

Richard Lewontin, Billions and billions of demons, The New York Review, p. 31, 9 January



So many think that it's just "PURE" Science!

Yes, I have read it.

The book was always more popular with scientists than with philosophers of science, who regarded it as secondary and derivative.

Also the book has caught on with some people as a justification for relativism, when it is really just the opposite. In and of itself it is interesting and worth reading.

 

[VirginiaHuguenot]

Thanks very much for the feedback, gentlemen.

 

[Kevin]

Has anyone read Thomas Kuhn's The Structure of Scientific Revolutions? I have a friend who will be lecturing on this book from a Christian perspective this summer, dv, and I'd be interested to hear any views on the book from the PB community.

I read it "back in the day" and thought it was great. I was just starting to read reformed litt then via the Tyler style theonomists and it was cited all over the place then.

I would love to hear the type of lecture you descibed. Will it be available on line?

 

[VirginiaHuguenot]

I read it "back in the day" and thought it was great. I was just starting to read reformed litt then via the Tyler style theonomists and it was cited all over the place then.

I would love to hear the type of lecture you descibed. Will it be available on line?

Thanks, Kevin. I'm not sure at present. The lectures will be given weekly in the Birmingham, Alabama area. I hope there will be audio recordings at least. If there is more to report, I'll update the thread.

 

[Kevin]

 

[VirginiaHuguenot]

Dr. Jerry Crick has been lecturing on Thomas Kuhn's The Structure of Scientific Revolutions this summer. The last lecture will be held this week. Audio recordings are available here (click on "2007 Sermons"/"Philosophy of Science").

 

[Scott]

It is good and useful. I read it about 12 years ago so it is not fresh in my mind. It is consistent with a presuppositional perspective and I have hard presup apologists use the work when evaluating science.

 

[Tim]

I highly recommend listening to Dr. Crick on science. I had the privilege of getting to know him when I attended the church in Birmingham. I moved away from Alabama before those lectures began, so I am glad that they are available online.

 

[VirginiaHuguenot]

I highly recommend listening to Dr. Crick on science. I had the privilege of getting to know him when I attended the church in Birmingham. I moved away from Alabama before those lectures began, so I am glad that they are available online.

Welcome to the Puritan Board, Tim!

Yes, Jerry Crick is a brilliant and knowledgeable person, though humble, in that and other areas, as well as a fine Southern gentlemen. We have been close friends for 13 years, and I have the highest respect for his Biblical understanding of science and philosophy.

 

[Kevin]

I highly recommend listening to Dr. Crick on science. I had the privilege of getting to know him when I attended the church in Birmingham. I moved away from Alabama before those lectures began, so I am glad that they are available online.

Glad to see one more Maritime ARPer on here>

 

[toddpedlar]

It is good and useful. I read it about 12 years ago so it is not fresh in my mind. It is consistent with a presuppositional perspective and I have hard presup apologists use the work when evaluating science.

And when presuppositional scientists read the work, they like what they read

and I do... it's a very good book. I use it for a course I teach to college freshmen
on the revolution in modern physics...

 

[Civbert]

The scientific world rarely thinks there is a whole supporting framework of philosophy and presupposition to their worldview and science, much like the oft quoted--Lewotin piece:

http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/703/

‘We take the side of science in spite of the patent absurdity of some of its constructs, in spite of its failure to fulfill many of its extravagant promises of health and life, in spite of the tolerance of the scientific community for unsubstantiated just-so stories, because we have a prior commitment, a commitment to materialism.​

It is not that the methods and institutions of science somehow compel us to accept a material explanation of the phenomenal world, but, on the contrary, that we are forced by our a priori adherence to material causes to create an apparatus of investigation and a set of concepts that produce material explanations, no matter how counter-intuitive, no matter how mystifying to the uninitiated. Moreover, that materialism is an absolute, for we cannot allow a Divine Foot in the door.​

The eminent Kant scholar Lewis Beck used to say that anyone who could believe in God could believe in anything. To appeal to an omnipotent deity is to allow that at any moment the regularities of nature may be ruptured, that Miracles may happen [but see the difference between origin and operational science—Ed.].’​

Reference

Richard Lewontin, Billions and billions of demons, The New York Review, p. 31, 9 January

That was such a great quote, that I quoted your quote in my post on another site.

I quoted your quote on Christian Logic Forum - see my post dated Mon Aug 13, 2007 (probably near the bottom of the page) where I respond to SpaghettiM0nst3r augment that science has/will show that the nerves system is equivalent or the origin of the mind.

I'll have to track to the original source, but linked SpaghettiM0nst3r to this thread for now.

Thanks!

 

[bookslover]

I read it a long time ago. I think the basic idea is that scientists don't just automatically give up their current theories or hypotheses as soon as they are positively disproved. There has to be a volume of overwhelming evidence that amounts to a tidal-wave-like paradigm shift before the abandonment of a current theory is accomplished. There is actually quite a bit of resistance to theory-changing until the evidence for the new paradigm becomes more or less irrefutable.

In other words, scientists have all the same prejudices and biases as everyone else.

I think this is accurate, though I think Todd Pedlar can tweak it if it needs tweaking.

 

[toddpedlar]

I read it a long time ago. I think the basic idea is that scientists don't just automatically give up their current theories or hypotheses as soon as they are positively disproved. There has to be a volume of overwhelming evidence that amounts to a tidal-wave-like paradigm shift before the abandonment of a current theory is accomplished. There is actually quite a bit of resistance to theory-changing until the evidence for the new paradigm becomes more or less irrefutable.

In other words, scientists have all the same prejudices and biases as everyone else.

I think this is accurate, though I think Todd Pedlar can tweak it if it needs tweaking.

No tweaking needed.

Actually the fact that the book does draw this conclusion is one of the reasons that some scientists actually don't like it (even though it's correct in its assessments). Scientists have presuppositions - they tend to presuppose a particular theoretical framework and then work from within that grid (again, just like everyone else)... rejecting a particularly wide-held paradigm, then, is something that causes a scientist to be anathema, since he or she is working outside the grid that most scientists accept as "neutral ground".

Todd