There are many ways to investigate phenomena. At some point, we articulate their underlying causes and unify them into a theory. In science, the validity of the theory is tested on reality. At the same time, its internal coherence is constantly examined. Eventually, the implications of the theory begin explaining ever greater ranges of phenomena. However, not all phenomena conform to the theory's expectations. As these "exceptions" become the "majority" the entire theory falls apart, making way for other theories to dominate our thinking. This is saltation in the evolution of scientific ideas. Unfortunately, there is no way to tell if the new theory is better than the old theory because we cannot step outside of ourselves into the world "as it is" to assess them objectively. Did Kuhn get this right?
 germanicus2 · Sat Dec 01, 2007 @ 05:57pm · 0 Comments |
