new scientific truth
Jim McGinn
convert people, said, "A new scientific truth does
not triumph by convincing its opponents and making
them see the light, but rather because its opponents
eventually die, and a new generation grows up that
is familiar with it."
John Wilkins
And when studied, for example by Hull or Sulloway, it turns out to be
false. Scientists adopt radical theories at any ange, and conservatives
can be as old or young as radicals.
--
John Wilkins
"And this is a damnable doctrine" - Charles Darwin, Autobiography
Jim McGinn
> Jim McGinn <jimm...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > The physicist Max Planck, finding it impossible to
> > convert people, said, "A new scientific truth does
> > not triumph by convincing its opponents and making
> > them see the light, but rather because its opponents
> > eventually die, and a new generation grows up that
> > is familiar with it."
>
> And when studied, for example by Hull or Sulloway, it turns out to be
> false. Scientists adopt radical theories at any ange, and conservatives
> can be as old or young as radicals.
I think Planck had a different perspective on it than Hull
or Sulloway: direct experience. Planck was in the game.
Hull and Sulloway were little more than Monday morning
quarterbacks.
Which of these, "in the game" or "monday morning quarterback"
do you consider yourself to be? More to the point, where's
the evidence that you yourself have seriously considered new
thinking rather than just reiterated conventional "wisdom."
Jim
Science is not a conclusion, it's a process.
John Wilkins
Oddly, most scientists I know, including physicists, recognise that the
singular of data is not anecdote. Hull, Tessner and Diamond, who did the
first study, and Sulloway's wonderful _Born to Rebel_ were done as
surveys of the actual data. Planck was a supreme *physicist*, but not a
sociologist of science, nor a historian, nor an social scientist of any
kind. he was making a flippant comment. Similar statements were made by
Lavoisier, K Lyell, and Dariwn himself, but it is, as Hull notes, based
on casual observation. If you are interested in following it up, check
out Hull's _Science as a Process_, page 379-383 (indeed, the entirety of
chapter ten of that book is worth reading).
On another matter, you claimed, wrongly, that Kuhn made innovation come
from outside the field. This is false, both as an interpretation of Kuhn
and in itself. Fields and paradigms, even before he abandoned the term
(as everyone else ought to have as well) are not identical. Indeed, the
competitor for a paradigm is *another* paradigm within the same field,
in Kuhn's original conception. I know because this was the subject of
both my masters and honours theses.
I don't wonder at the fact that folk on sci.bio.evolution despair of
conversation with you, given your sloppy and inexpert approach to
things, Jim. I'm "in the game" alright, the game of philosophy and
history of science (it's my PhD topic). You aren't even able to cheer
the game, because you are watching the kids in the sandlot.
And Hull is worth several dozen of you. If you open Gould's Brick,
sorry, _Structure of Evolutionary Theory_, you will find the first
person he disagrees with, and spends an entire chapter doing so, is
David Hull. Granted, Hull is being treated as a historian and
philosopher of science (which is what Gould is attempting to act as in
that part of the book, indeed, all I have so far read of it), but he is
very much in the game. For some reason, the index fails to list James
McGinn. Perhaps Gould merely forgot your work...
Michael Clark
news:1fz4k2d.1wi9nd3vbvbu4N%john.w...@bigpond.com...
[...]
> I don't wonder at the fact that folk on sci.bio.evolution despair of
> conversation with you, given your sloppy and inexpert approach to
> things, Jim. I'm "in the game" alright, the game of philosophy and
> history of science (it's my PhD topic). You aren't even able to cheer
> the game, because you are watching the kids in the sandlot.
>
> And Hull is worth several dozen of you. If you open Gould's Brick,
> sorry, _Structure of Evolutionary Theory_, you will find the first
> person he disagrees with, and spends an entire chapter doing so, is
> David Hull. Granted, Hull is being treated as a historian and
> philosopher of science (which is what Gould is attempting to act as in
> that part of the book, indeed, all I have so far read of it), but he is
> very much in the game. For some reason, the index fails to list James
> McGinn. Perhaps Gould merely forgot your work...
Game, set , match. (ouch!)
:-)
Jim McGinn
Planck was in the game. How can you pretend to discount
his opinion?
> but not a
> sociologist of science, nor a historian, nor an social scientist of any
> kind.
All of whom are Monday morning quarterbacks.
> he was making a flippant comment.
He was making a statement that reflected his experiences.
His experiences reflected his frustration with the fact
that few were willing to actually deal with the content
of his thinking. Instead they were all too eager to
ignore the science and jump into the politics. To them
science was not a search for truth but an opportunity for
endless intellectual fodder. Which of these better
describes your approach? Be honest.
> Similar statements were made by
> Lavoisier, K Lyell, and Dariwn himself,
So you discount these statements and, instead, rely on the
words of wankers that are not even in the game?
> but it is, as Hull notes, based
> on casual observation. If you are interested in following it up, check
> out Hull's _Science as a Process_, page 379-383 (indeed, the entirety of
> chapter ten of that book is worth reading).
I like the title. It's unfortunate that so few actually
understand what it means.
> On another matter, you claimed, wrongly, that Kuhn made innovation come
> from outside the field.
No, I said, correctly, that Kuhn said the *innovators*
come from outside the field.
> This is false, both as an interpretation of Kuhn
> and in itself. Fields and paradigms, even before he abandoned the term
> (as everyone else ought to have as well)
Seems like a useful term to me. In fact I think you are
demonstrating how useful it is. For example, why are you
so disinclined to actually address the content of my
thinking? Has it not occurred to you that you are making
my point for me?
> are not identical. Indeed, the
> competitor for a paradigm is *another* paradigm within the same field,
> in Kuhn's original conception.
Uh, where did I ever claim otherwise.
> I know because this was the subject of
> both my masters and honours theses.
>
> I don't wonder at the fact that folk on sci.bio.evolution despair of
> conversation with you, given your sloppy and inexpert approach to
> things, Jim.
How would you supposedly know? You are not in the game.
Surely you are not so self deluded that you are suggesting
otherwise, are you?
The current paradigm of evolutionary theory carries
with it the illusion of precision. A nonparticipant,
like yourself, will be unable to see through this
illusion. I reveal the current paradigm by way of
removing the simpleminded assumptions that underly
this illusion. Unless you were actually in the game
you couldn't possibly understand any of this.
> I'm "in the game" alright, the game of philosophy and
> history of science (it's my PhD topic).
Correct. Now why don't you go to some NG that deals
with these topics. The subject matter here involves
evolutionary theory. It can get very technical. It
will appear sloppy to outsiders.
> You aren't even able to cheer
> the game, because you are watching the kids in the sandlot.
>
> And Hull is worth several dozen of you.
How would you know. You are not in the game.
> If you open Gould's Brick,
> sorry, _Structure of Evolutionary Theory_, you will find the first
> person he disagrees with, and spends an entire chapter doing so, is
> David Hull. Granted, Hull is being treated as a historian and
> philosopher of science (which is what Gould is attempting to act as in
> that part of the book, indeed, all I have so far read of it), but he is
> very much in the game. For some reason, the index fails to list James
> McGinn. Perhaps Gould merely forgot your work...
Gould was an excellent historian of natural history. He
was also an excellent historian of evolutionary theory.
But he was a joke an evolutionary theorist (One possible
exception being his work on Punk Eek, but even then he
completely misinterpreted its significance to
evolutionary theory).
Beyond that I think you are showing your hand here. You
look for confirmation of my thinking not in my thinking
itself but in the thinking of others. You epitomize the
reason Kuhn wrote about paradigms.
I asked you a questions above. You left it unanswered.
Let me ask it again: Where's the evidence that you
yourself have seriously considered new thinking rather
than just reiterated conventional "wisdom?"
Jim
Science is not a conclusion, its a process.
Jim McGinn
> > For some reason, the index fails to list James
> > McGinn. Perhaps Gould merely forgot your work...
>
> Game, set, match. (ouch!)
My point is that you all are unable to dispute
the scientific content of my hypothesis and instead
are only able to dispute it on the basis of politics
(ad hominen).
Thank you for helping me make my point.
Jim
Sverker Johansson
As John W has noted, empirical studies do not support
Planck's impression. For that matter, Planck himself
wasn't a young lad when he participated in the development
of quantum mechanics.
I have seen this quote before, several times. It is most
commonly used by people who have failed to convince
people that their pet notions are new scientific truths.
They hope that nobody will notice the failure of logic
in the leap from "new scientific truths fail to convince
old opponents" to "failure to convince old opponents
means it's a new scientific truth".
Of course, _you_ have no such agenda. But perhaps you
should be careful about what quotes you post, unless
you wish to give the impression that you do.
--
Best regards
Sverker Johansson
--------------------------------------------------------
Humans breed pigs for a purpose -- making bacon.
Does that make a pig's life meaningful _for_the_pig_ ?
--------------------------------------------------------
Richard Wagler
Sverker Johansson wrote:
> Jim McGinn wrote:
> >
> > The physicist Max Planck, finding it impossible to
> > convert people, said, "A new scientific truth does
> > not triumph by convincing its opponents and making
> > them see the light, but rather because its opponents
> > eventually die, and a new generation grows up that
> > is familiar with it."
>
> As John W has noted, empirical studies do not support
> Planck's impression. For that matter, Planck himself
> wasn't a young lad when he participated in the development
> of quantum mechanics.
>
> I have seen this quote before, several times. It is most
> commonly used by people who have failed to convince
> people that their pet notions are new scientific truths.
> They hope that nobody will notice the failure of logic
> in the leap from "new scientific truths fail to convince
> old opponents" to "failure to convince old opponents
> means it's a new scientific truth".
>
> Of course, _you_ have no such agenda. But perhaps you
> should be careful about what quotes you post, unless
> you wish to give the impression that you do.
>
>
>
The second point that needs to be made is that people
outside the field who make significant contributions
invariably verse themselves well in the 'conventional'
theory. Einstein may have been a patent clerk early
in his career but his physics was not some holus-bolus
creation he put together in his basement. And outsiders
who do achieve significant things usually end up being insiders.
Again see Einstein. Ungrounded mavericks remain
that. See Velikovsky.
Rick Wagler
firstjois
"Richard Wagler" <taxi...@shaw.ca> wrote in message
news:3F340F23...@shaw.ca...
:
:
: Sverker Johansson wrote:
:
: > Jim McGinn wrote:
: > >
: > > The physicist Max Planck, finding it impossible to
: > > convert people, said, "A new scientific truth does
: > > not triumph by convincing its opponents and making
: > > them see the light, but rather because its opponents
: > > eventually die, and a new generation grows up that
: > > is familiar with it."
Who do you suppose familiarizes the new generation so they would grow up
with it? Perhaps there always are many among the "old generation"
enlightened enough to teach the new generation . Those who would battle
inertia more obliquely, willing to let the big wind bags go about their
business while they quietly go about their own.
(I don't mean this to be any encouragement to the AAR people, They haven't
found a scientific truth so far and can't triumph because there is no bulb
in the socket.)
Frustrating as it must be to those so very few Plancks among us,
conservation and inertia are important, too.
Jois
--
Hypothesis of an Aquatic Human Ancestor (HAHA),
Lorenzo 2003
Jim McGinn
> As John W has noted, empirical studies do not support
> Planck's impression.
I'd say the empiricalness of these studies is overstated,
to say the least.
For that matter, Planck himself
> wasn't a young lad when he participated in the development
> of quantum mechanics.
>
> I have seen this quote before, several times. It is most
> commonly used by people who have failed to convince
> people that their pet notions are new scientific truths.
Do you consider quantum mechanics a, "pet notion?"
> They hope that nobody will notice the failure of logic
> in the leap from "new scientific truths fail to convince
> old opponents" to "failure to convince old opponents
> means it's a new scientific truth".
Isn't it a bit silly for you to pretend to dispute my
thinking by way of these abstractions? I mean, aren't
you just proving my point?
>
> Of course, _you_ have no such agenda. But perhaps you
> should be careful about what quotes you post, unless
> you wish to give the impression that you do.
Perhaps you should be less concerned about impressions
and more concerned about facts.
Jim
Jim McGinn
> The second point that needs to be made is that people
> outside the field who make significant contributions
> invariably verse themselves well in the 'conventional'
> theory.
Conventional vagueness.
Jim
Richard Wagler
Jim McGinn wrote:
Can you give us a concrete example of a total
outsider with no grounding in the relevant disciplines
who created a new paradigm?
Rick Wagler
Sverker Johansson
>
> Sverker Johansson <lsj.h...@homo.sapiens.se> wrote
>
> > As John W has noted, empirical studies do not support
> > Planck's impression.
>
> I'd say the empiricalness of these studies is overstated,
> to say the least.
Planck's statement was based on his observation of a single case
of scientific change, in which he was personally involved.
Not solid grounds for valid generalizations across all fields
of science.
As for the studies John referred to, precisely what
is your quarrel with their methodology?
> For that matter, Planck himself
> > wasn't a young lad when he participated in the development
> > of quantum mechanics.
> >
> > I have seen this quote before, several times. It is most
> > commonly used by people who have failed to convince
> > people that their pet notions are new scientific truths.
>
> Do you consider quantum mechanics a, "pet notion?"
No. But then, Planck's statement is rarely quoted in
defense of QM nowadays.
> > They hope that nobody will notice the failure of logic
> > in the leap from "new scientific truths fail to convince
> > old opponents" to "failure to convince old opponents
> > means it's a new scientific truth".
>
> Isn't it a bit silly for you to pretend to dispute my
> thinking by way of these abstractions? I mean, aren't
> you just proving my point?
Not until it is demonstrated that your pet notions
actually _are_ new scientific truths. Until and unless
that happens, _you_ are proving _my_ point by posting
both Planck's quote, and claims that fail to convince,
in the same ng.
What was your point in quoting Planck, anyway?
> > Of course, _you_ have no such agenda. But perhaps you
> > should be careful about what quotes you post, unless
> > you wish to give the impression that you do.
>
> Perhaps you should be less concerned about impressions
> and more concerned about facts.
So far, I have seen very few facts from you in this thread.
Philip Deitiker
<taxi...@shaw.ca> wrote:
>Can you give us a concrete example of a total
>outsider with no grounding in the relevant disciplines
>who created a new paradigm?
Jim created the McGinnian Death Spiral, that should amount
to something.
Jim McGinn
> > Perhaps you should be less concerned about impressions
> > and more concerned about facts.
>
> So far, I have seen very few facts from you in this thread.
I've seen no facts from you in *any* of the threads in this NG.
Jim
Jim McGinn
> > Conventional vagueness.
> Can you give us a concrete example of a total
> outsider with no grounding in the relevant disciplines
> who created a new paradigm?
I'm encouraged by the fact that you don't deny
conventional vagueness.
Jim
Richard Wagler
Jim McGinn wrote:
I take it this means no. Only to be expected.
So much for that.
By the way, Jim, a real scientist's response to
deficiencies in the evidence is *not* simply make
something up. That is central. Spend some time
to try and figure this out and quit making a fool
of yourself.
Rick Wagler
Michael Clark
I wonder what the hell "conventional vagueness" is?
Is that anything that Jimmy doesn't understand?
That would be quite a bit, wouldn't it? :-)
Honestly folks, killfiles will prevent alot of this
meaningless back-and-forth. Jimmy isn't here
to engage in anything usefull -you all know that.
> Rick Wagler
Jim McGinn
> > I'm encouraged by the fact that you don't deny
> > conventional vagueness.
> >
> > Jim
>
> I take it this means no. Only to be expected.
>
> So much for that.
>
> By the way, Jim, a real scientist's response to
> deficiencies in the evidence is *not* simply make
> something up.
We all draw from the same evidence. That you percieve it
to be deficient is not a good argument for vagueness. The
way historical sciences work is somebody proposes a
hypothesis. And it shoud be as *specific* as possible.
Then attempts can be made to refute it. The irrefutability
of your possition has to do with the fact that you have no
position (which you don't deny). The irrefutability of my
position has to do with the fact that it is consistent with
the evidence. Big difference.
<snip>
Jim
Jim McGinn
> I wonder what the hell "conventional vagueness" is?
Michael Clark:
"I think we just woke up one day (a day being the last
third of the Miocene) and realized that our anatomy and
behavioral suite, that we had aquired ~in the garden~,
equipped us very nicely for a burgeoning and newly
developing ecology. Happily, we strode out into the
savanna."
Any more questions?
<snip>
Jim
Sverker Johansson
No wonder, since this is the only thread I'm currently
participating in, and my posts here concern impressions more
than facts.
In past threads, I've posted my share of facts, which anybody
can verify with a simple google search.
I note that you did not respond to my query about why you
quoted Planck in the first place.
Jim McGinn
> . . . my posts here concern impressions more
> than facts.
My point exactly.
> I note that you did not respond to my query about
> why you quoted Planck in the first place.
Dually noted.
Jim
Sverker Johansson
> Sverker Johansson <lsj.h...@homo.sapiens.se> wrote
>
> > . . . my posts here concern impressions more
> > than facts.
>
> My point exactly.
Have you taken lessons from creationists in quoting
out of context?
> > I note that you did not respond to my query about
> > why you quoted Planck in the first place.
>
> Dually noted.
Best regards
Sverker Johansson