Scientific Paradigms
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
13-04-2012, 02:08 PM
Scientific Paradigms

  1. What it is the chronological order of scientific paradigms?
  2. Can you describe the scientific paradigm we endure contemporaneously?
  3. What is your opinion about how society has handled scientific paradigms?
  4. What is the better exercise of a scientific paradigm?

Humanism - ontological doctrine that posits that humans define reality
Theism - ontological doctrine that posits a supernatural entity creates and defines reality
Atheism - political doctrine opposed to theist doctrine in public policy
I am right, and you are wrong - I hope you die peacefullyCool
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
14-04-2012, 02:14 AM
RE: Scientific Paradigms
I'm confused as to what you think you are asking in this post. Your wording doesn't convey any clear ideas or questions. It's not clear what you mean by scientific paradigms, such as what you see as examples of scientific paradigms.

The scientific process is a multi-stage brainstorming/filtering system whereby:
1. Reality is observed
2. Models of reality are proposed to explain observations, where each model is descriptive of reality and has predictive power
3. The predictions of each competing model are determined, and in particular the surprising predictions that are out of line with other models are identified
4. Experiments or further observations are made to determine whether the predictions hold true

We do this in the hope that
* by coming up with better and better models that have increasing levels of predictive power (even when its predictions are surprising or applied to new situations) and
* by discarding models that have no predictive power, that
we will gain more and more reliable "knowledge" of the universe. In particular we seek to develop a type of knowledge that has practical engineering applications to improve quality of life and for other human-driven endeavours.

Within this system we rely heavily on the concept of peer review to ensure that experts in a given field have been able to verify that claims being made are able to be rigorously defended in the face of existing observations and knowledge. This helps to ensure a growing body of literature that can be considered reliable at some basic level, and useful as a basis for further research and development activities.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like Hafnof's post
14-04-2012, 06:01 AM
RE: Scientific Paradigms
(14-04-2012 02:14 AM)Hafnof Wrote:  I'm confused as to what you think you are asking in this post. Your wording doesn't convey any clear ideas or questions.

I got that. TW needs to read some tao. Tongue

[Image: klingon_zps7e68578a.jpg]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
15-04-2012, 12:37 PM
RE: Scientific Paradigms
(14-04-2012 02:14 AM)Hafnof Wrote:  I'm confused as to what you think you are asking in this post. Your wording doesn't convey any clear ideas or questions. It's not clear what you mean by scientific paradigms, such as what you see as examples of scientific paradigms.
Yeah, I was hoping I could get you to do the heavy lifting. For right now, until I gather the sufficeint amount of information, I would suggest we start with an examination of the heliocentric theory and subsequent law.

How should society (the church) have handled the situation better?

Humanism - ontological doctrine that posits that humans define reality
Theism - ontological doctrine that posits a supernatural entity creates and defines reality
Atheism - political doctrine opposed to theist doctrine in public policy
I am right, and you are wrong - I hope you die peacefullyCool
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
15-04-2012, 03:10 PM
Define 'Scientific Paradigms'
(13-04-2012 02:08 PM)TrainWreck Wrote:  
  1. What it is the chronological order of scientific paradigms?
  2. Can you describe the scientific paradigm we endure contemporaneously?
  3. What is your opinion about how society has handled scientific paradigms?
  4. What is the better exercise of a scientific paradigm?
Your questions are unanswerable without a definition of terms.

Skepticism is not a position; it is an approach to claims.
Science is not a subject, but a method.
[Image: flagstiny%206.gif]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
16-04-2012, 05:24 AM
RE: Scientific Paradigms
I'm going to go from memory here and not bothering to look up any sources. If I get it wrong please feel free to correct.
The idea that we are at the centre of the universe is an ancient one. Why? Because that's how it appears to be. The ancient greek idea seems very much to have been that celestial bodies all move in perfect circles around the earth. There were a few special stars known as wandering stars or "planets" that would do a little extra jive now and then, which could be explained as them taking a little backwards circular route.
Fast forward a thousand years or so and the catholic church has adopted this notion, but as far as I understand it takes a view that we are below all of the heavens but above hell. We lie somewhere in the middle, at the bottom of the heavenly creation and at the top of the domain of the demons.
Heliocentricity first made its mark with Copernicus who noted that if you're trying to calculate the movements of the planets the maths works out a whole lot simpler if you treat them as circles around the sun rather than the earth.
Nice.
The next step came about Brahe performed some very precise and long-term measurements of the movements of the planets. These measurements were the basis for Kepler's work where he proposed the true path of the planets as ellipses around the sun.
Galileo once and for all shattered the old philosophy by observing the moons of jupiter with his new telescope. To see a heavenly body orbiting something other than the earth indicated that the geocentric model would not survive.
How should society have handled all this:
1. They should have been sceptical about the extraordinary claim that the earth orbits the sun. It doesn't appear to orbit the sun, so good evidence should be required by society to believe that it does orbit the sun
2. As the evidence accumulated for a heliocentric model society should have gradually come to accept it, while also engaging in heavy duty research to uncover the mechanism involved (which was eventually discovered by Newton as gravity)
3. Once the fact and the mechanism are understood and proven the new model should have been accepted until something with even better predictive power came along (which it did in the form of relativity with Einstein)
Looking for models of reality that match reality and make surprising but accurate predictions is how science is supposed to work. The power structures that exist within society should be sceptical but tolerant of new models, especially where the existing models are consistently making false predictions.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
16-04-2012, 02:03 PM
RE: Scientific Paradigms
And, I would say, that is what happened.

Another thing I was concerned about is the spherical shape of the Earth, which I think is apart of the same paradigm. A theory I encountered was how were the "rational" sea captains able to convince their ignorant shiphands that the oceans stuck to the sphere and did not drain off at the sides or bottom???

Humanism - ontological doctrine that posits that humans define reality
Theism - ontological doctrine that posits a supernatural entity creates and defines reality
Atheism - political doctrine opposed to theist doctrine in public policy
I am right, and you are wrong - I hope you die peacefullyCool
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
19-04-2012, 12:32 PM
RE: Scientific Paradigms
It has been three days since I posted the dilemma associated with the introduction of the scientific theory of a spherical Earth for sailors of that era, and I would like to know what are the best solutions to the problem - how do they convince the sailors that the water is not going to drain off in to whatever it is that is supposed to be beyond Earth?

I do not want to hear that it is probably best to lie to the sailors that the Earth is infinity flat, just to get them to sail across the ocean - please don't tell me that, because I will rub it in the nose of the thinking atheists.

Humanism - ontological doctrine that posits that humans define reality
Theism - ontological doctrine that posits a supernatural entity creates and defines reality
Atheism - political doctrine opposed to theist doctrine in public policy
I am right, and you are wrong - I hope you die peacefullyCool
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
19-04-2012, 01:21 PM
RE: Scientific Paradigms
(16-04-2012 02:03 PM)TrainWreck Wrote:  Another thing I was concerned about is the spherical shape of the Earth, which I think is apart of the same paradigm. A theory I encountered was how were the "rational" sea captains able to convince their ignorant shiphands that the oceans stuck to the sphere and did not drain off at the sides or bottom???

You presume that the captains of the ships believed they would not sail off the edge of the table onto the floor just to be eaten by the dog. Might've just been adventurers and explorers looking for an adrenalin rush. No faith required.

I am us and we is me. ... bitches.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
20-04-2012, 08:18 AM
RE: Scientific Paradigms
Humans have known that the earth is round since at least 5000 years BC, and that knowledge was never lost. Various calculations about its size came and went over that period but reasonably accurate calculations certainly preceded Christ.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Hafnof's post
Post Reply
Forum Jump: