Dear Ranjan,
Gosh, no. I do not accept this view at all, and neither would Kuhn have done.
Paradigm shifts do NOT render all prior science wrong or false.
In many cases, paradigm shifts change scales or add new dimensions while retaining much of the earlier science and scientific theories.
The Copernican revolution rendered the Ptolemaic picture of the solar system wrong because it was wrong. Nevertheless, there was a long period during which Ptolemaic astronomy provided better observational data. And an interim period during which the Copernican and Ptolemaic models of the solar system competed with a third system put forward by Tycho Brahe. The Tychonean system had the added advantage of providing even better observational data than either the Copernicans or the Ptolemaics could do.
With respect to physics, nothing overturned Carnot or Clausius on thermodynamics, and Einstein’s theory of gravitation did not overturn Newton’s mechanics on the scales and speed with which Newton worked. While it has been difficult to integrate relativistic gravitation and quantum physics, both have been proven valid at levels of experiment to a finer grain of detail than any scientific theories ever before tested. Even so, neither of these has rendered Newton wrong on the scale of classical physics.
This business of paradigm shifts and what paradigm shifts mean to working scientists is massively misunderstood. Again, I suggest you read Cromer (1997).
For that matter, to understand just what it meant to Einstein to shape a new paradigm, I refer you to Einstein (1998 [1905]). When Einstein proved the physical reality of atoms with his paper on Brownian motion, he did so using facts on which all agreed – facts so well known that he did not require references. The new paradigm emerged from his ability to demonstrate that these well known and long observed facts meant that atomic theory was a physical fact rather than mere conjecture. So here is a case of a major new paradigm that changed the face of physics without rendering a single fact wrong or false, but rather by integrating facts and their meaning at a new level.
If you want to see how scientists debate these issues, I refer you to Pedro Ferreira’s (2014) excellent book, The Perfect Theory. A Century of Geniuses and the Battle Over General Relativity.
The history and philosophy of mathematics demonstrates a rich history of similar debates. (See, for example, Hersh.)
We cannot at all say that this is a case of the Emperor’s New Clothes. The fairy tale is a case of a couple of charlatan tailors concocting non-existing cloth for a gullible emperor and his courtiers.
The slow, progressive development of science certainly involves facts and theories proven wrong – but more often, it involves integrating facts and theories into an expanding structure with increasingly greater levels of certainty and clarity.
The issues of consilience and interdisciplinarity rest on the fact that we are slowly finding out that the physical basis of many phenomena influence and affect the chemical and biological basis of other phenomena. One reason major new steps in science become increasingly difficult is that what we have learned over the past century and a half is so well demonstrated.
To describe scientific paradigm shifts as a version of the emperor’s new clothes held up to public light by a young and innocent observer is not the case at all. So, no, I do not have to admit the proposition that “all scientific theories are wrong or false when there is a major shift of paradigm.” This simply is not the case. The history of science is far more complex and robust an enterprise.
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. 1997. Connected Knowledge. Science, Philosophy, and Education. New York: Oxford University Press.
Einstein, Albert. 1998 [1905]. Einstein’s Miraculous Year. Five Papers that Changed the Face of Physics. Edited and introduced by John Stachel. Princeton, New Jersey: Princeton University Press.
Ferreira, Pedro. 2014. The Perfect Theory. A Century of Geniuses and the Battle Over General Relativity. New York: Houghton Mifflin Harcourt.
Hersh, Reuben. 1998. What is Mathematics, Really? London: Vintage Books.
--
M.P. Ranjan wrote:
—snip—
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?
--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
-----------------------------------------------------------------
|