I disagree that ALL scientific theories are falsified or 'wrong' after a
paradigm shift.
It's a question of context of the theory.
For instance, newtonian mechanics is *not* invalidated by relativity.
Relativity just deals with cases that NM doesn't. If you were to start
with Relativity and take the limit as 'v' becomes very much less than 'c',
you end up with newtonian mechanics.
Evolution is another example: Darwin's original theory remains correct if
one includes ONLY the evidence that was available to him; modern
evolutionary theory is different not because it invalidates the original,
but because it accommodates all the evidence we've accumulated since
Darwin's time.
The same can be said for most scientific theories.
Alternatively, one might say that all scientific theories are wrong - if
you apply them to contexts in which they are not intended to be applied.
/fas
\V/_
Prof. Filippo A. Salustri, Ph.D., P.Eng.
Email: [log in to unmask]
http://deseng.ryerson.ca/~fil/
On 15 April 2014 09:09, M P Ranjan <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
> Dear Ken
>
> However, you will have to admit that ALL scientific theories are WRONG or
> FALSE when there is a major shift of Paradigm, they stand Falsified but
> before that they are treated as gospel truth ONCE ACCEPTED or ratified by
> consent and experiment based on the older paradigm!
>
> Therefore, can we say that the entire edifice is like the Emperors New
> Clothes, Till a youthful and innocent observer does not toe the line?
>
> With warm regards
>
> M P Ranjan
> From New Delhi Airport on tour
> 15 April 2014 at 6.35 pm IST
>
> Prof M P Ranjan
> Independent Academic, Ahmedabad
> Author of blog : http://www.designforindia.com
> Archive of papers : http://cept.academia.edu/RanjanMP
> Sent from my iPad
>
> > On 15-Apr-2014, at 11:12 am, Ken Friedman <[log in to unmask]>
> wrote:
> >
> > Dear Klaus,
> >
> > Thanks for your reply. Again, it's my view that unpacking these issues
> takes far more time and space than I can give it now.
> >
> > There are a couple of places where I'd look at this differently than you
> do. Thomas Kuhn did not believe that he was debunking science, the
> scientific method, or physics. Rather, he was explaining how new paradigms
> come into being and how old paradigms vanish. This, of course, raises
> issues that such a simple statement fails to clarify or explain.
> >
> > Scientific theories do not presume a "god's eye" view. They account for
> human beings who develop and discover facts using human-made perspectives,
> theories, and concepts, along with human-made routines, procedures,
> methods, and instruments. The relation of these perspectives, theories,
> concepts, routines, procedures, methods, and instruments to their human
> creators is a given. While different observers and thinkers describe and
> interpret their meaning in different ways, no one sensible imagines that
> gods do science.
> >
> > While designers shape things for human beings in a human-centered
> context, I nevertheless believe that we must know something about how the
> universe works to do this well.
> >
> > The physical elements are all the same in every place that we find them.
> Substances made of elements that we have combined in ways have different
> properties. From these physical and chemical properties, we can design
> different artifacts. We can do things with different kinds and grades of
> steel, copper, wood, neon, or water that we cannot do with other kinds and
> grades of the same material - and certainly not with other materials. While
> some kinds of laminated wood can be stronger than steel in some
> applications, we cannot raise a skyscraper on a wooden frame. A wooden
> sword is fine for kendo practice, but it will not do for combat - and a
> steel sword is an ineffective weapon against a handgun or a rifle. The
> applications of these facts are local and human. The physical facts appear
> to be universal. It is the immutable nature of such facts that allow us to
> design certain kinds of tools. Human ingenuity, invention, and design allow
> us to develop new ways to apply some facts - witness, for example, the
> massive wood beams supporting the roof of the Oslo airport in an
> application that would once have involved steel beams.
> >
> > None of this is religious, nor is it beyond the realm of human
> understanding. In my view, the human creation of science transcends local
> concerns to reveal facts about the universe on which we can draw (see, for
> example: Cromer 1993, 1995) to meet local human needs. This is even the
> case with mathematics (Hersh 1998). Whatever one may say about religion or
> metaphysics, one God or many, some sense of these issues is helpful to
> designers.
> >
> > Again, I don't ask that you agree with me. I am saying that I differ
> from you on this, and I believe that rich conversation would disclose far
> more than I am able to say here.
> >
> > The short story, again, is that research as I see it remains one useful
> way to inform wise design choices, and I'd argue that designers with a
> sense of mathematics, physics, chemistry, and material science can do more
> and better work than a designer ignorant of how the universe works. For
> that matter, this is also true of designers with an understanding of the
> biological and human sciences and philosophy. No one can master all these,
> but any well educated citizen should have some idea of what these fields
> know, and what the underlying disciplines mean for any specific design
> practice. Our field suffers from the fact that too many vocationally
> trained designers know far less than they should compared to what an
> educated professional designer ought to know.
> >
> > I'd have to think more about the issues you raise in the philosophy of
> science to enter this conversation seriously. For now, I can say that I
> partly agree and partly disagree without sorting through the layers of
> issues.
> >
> > I will make a comment on the perspectives that inform my concerns with
> respect to debating you on these issues.
> >
> > It sometimes seems to me that your excellent educational and
> professional background means that you are not always aware of what
> designers today don't know. You followed an engineering degree with a
> degree in design at Ulm and a PhD in communication at Illinois. You've
> worked at top universities all your life, mostly in communication, and
> always in departments where people have a broad knowledge of scientific
> issues. You are a skilled research methodologist and a developer of
> research methods - for example, the widely used Krippendorff's alpha.
> >
> > If we were all Klaus Krippendorffs, I'd be less concerned.
> >
> > As it is, I am concerned about the broader range of general knowledge
> and different kinds of background knowledge that support wise design.
> >
> > Yours,
> >
> > Ken
> >
> > Ken Friedman, PhD, DSc (hc), FDRS | University Distinguished Professor |
> Swinburne University of Technology | Melbourne, Australia | University
> email [log in to unmask]<mailto:[log in to unmask]> | Private
> email [log in to unmask]<mailto:[log in to unmask]> | Mobile +61
> 404 830 462 | Academia Page http://swinburne.academia.edu/KenFriedman
> >
> > Guest Professor | College of Design and Innovation | Tongji University |
> Shanghai, China ||| Adjunct Professor | School of Creative Arts | James
> Cook University | Townsville, Australia
> >
> > --
> >
> > References
> >
> > Cromer, Alan. 1993. Uncommon Sense. The Heretical Nature of Science. New
> York: Oxford University Press.
> >
> > Cromer, Alan. 1997. Connected Knowledge. Science, Philosophy, and
> Education. New York: Oxford University Press.
> >
> > Hersh, Reuben. 1998. What is Mathematics, Really? London: Vintage Books.
> >
> > --
> >
> > Klaus Krippendorff wrote:
> >
> > --snip--
> >
> > well,
> >
> > ken,
> >
> > as you say, issues in the philosophy of science are complex and your
> feeling that my saying that the idea of research as a search for universal
> truths is epistemologically questionable is due to its complexity. so you
> are right rhetorically but not substantially. i took too much for granted.
> >
> > when i say epistemologically questionable i mean worth questioning the
> possibility of finding universal truths in the universe. when i said
> "debunked" i had in mind, for example the writings by ludwig fleck on the
> history of a fact, showing how the conception of syphilis evolved as it
> accommodated the often strange conceptions of different generations of
> scientific communities with no final understanding in sight. or thomas
> kuhn's work on the shifting paradigms in science, at each juncture claiming
> universal truths only to be replaced by new construction. or bruno latour's
> study of laboratory work which showed it to be guided by all kinds of
> strange conceptions, including to get appropriate funding. or the
> theoretical physicist john wheelers' "participatory anthropic principle"
> which asserts that researchers are participants in bringing about
> explanations of the universe's functioning which cannot exist without human
> participation. or werner heisenberg's famous statement that we cannot study
> nature only nature's response to our method of asking questions. i think
> they support what i had summarized in a few sentences.
> >
> > i'd say that projects like "trying to understand how the universe works"
> are "epistemologically questionable" as they assumes the ability to take a
> god's eye perspective on how it works, failing to admit that real people
> have to undertake such a project. researchers who pursue their careers,
> bring their own often unacknowledged methodological commitments and
> intellectual imperialist ambitions to such projects, or have vested
> interest in seeing particular theories validated or findings what they
> expect to find.
> >
> > i think we agree that designers need to know something about how things
> work in the domain of human practices of living in which a design could
> intervene. these communities may be small or large, even have global
> affects.
> >
> > but this can hardly be construed as a universalist perspective. rather
> as one that embraces everything that a particular design could affect,
> especially the communities that could be affected, and potentially opposed
> or embrace a design. in my opinion, to facilitate professional design
> practices, in my opinion, this is what design research should aim at.
> >
> > ken, you tried to be very clear about what you saying, looking at the
> etymology of words and the source of quotations. i appreciate that. but i
> invite you to question the epistemology of claims that escape of the realm
> of human understanding and language use into the metaphysics of religious
> claims. i hope that designers stay on the ground of creating realities for
> others.
> >
> > research that merely explains how the universe works without human
> participation and without considering its effect is usually undertaken by
> researchers who oppose improvements, keep things as is. designers have
> better things to do than what the current universe is like.
> >
> > --snip--
> >
> >
> >
> > -----------------------------------------------------------------
> > PhD-Design mailing list <[log in to unmask]>
> > Discussion of PhD studies and related research in Design
> > Subscribe or Unsubscribe at https://www.jiscmail.ac.uk/phd-design
> > -----------------------------------------------------------------
>
>
> -----------------------------------------------------------------
> PhD-Design mailing list <[log in to unmask]>
> Discussion of PhD studies and related research in Design
> Subscribe or Unsubscribe at https://www.jiscmail.ac.uk/phd-design
> -----------------------------------------------------------------
>
-----------------------------------------------------------------
PhD-Design mailing list <[log in to unmask]>
Discussion of PhD studies and related research in Design
Subscribe or Unsubscribe at https://www.jiscmail.ac.uk/phd-design
-----------------------------------------------------------------
|
