Astronomy is not perhaps the best place to look for examples which illustrate
this discussion: anybody can come up with new theories about the nature of the
universe, but in order to even begin to have such ideas accepted one must
either have access to some amazingly complicated and expensive equipment, or,
be capable of excruciatingly complex mathematical formulations.
(Or write scripts for Star Trek).
One would have to find others willing to follow ones work, to prove or
disprove its validity; so a fairly stable and establish reputation in the field
is pretty much a prerequisite (having dedicated students to follow ones work
would probably have the same end effect).
Even then, the nature of the 'paradigm change' may or may not be understood
by those expected to validate it. An outstanding example of this was the
'dialog' between Albert Einstein (physics) and Henri Bergson (philosophy) -
both of whom were Nobel Laureates. Bergson sought to supplement modern physics
with an updated body of metaphysical concepts, but was generally (and
mistakenly) thought to be criticizing Einstein and his work. What Bergson was
in fact attempting to do was to more clearly define how the concepts of time
and space were being utilized within modern physics - a worthwhile endeavor,
since time was (and still, for the most part, is) being thought of as another
spatial dimension.
Bergson's observation that time differs from space in that time divides
things up into different KINDS of things (whereas spatial divisions create
different degrees of things) was not really embraced by physics, which relies
very much on gauge theories (wherein there is a 'zero point' on a scale of
measure that in turn co-relativizes the things being measured). If you
encounter particles with negative characteristics, then you can be certain that
you are dealing with the relativizations of a gauge theory.
Dark matter, however, is (literally) something different: this is a different
KIND of thing so, essentially it this is an indication that a temporal
differentiation is at play. This places that concept where Bergson was pointing
- outside of the gauge theory that is Relativity, where the 'laws of physics'
are different (because the effects of what we call time don't occur the way our
experience tells us they should).
So, the 'paradigm shift' needed here is one of supplementation: not to throw
Relativity out but, to realize that it is a gauge theory and that not
everything is going to be measurable on the same scale (as has already become
obvious through Quantum Mechanics). In this case, the 'old paradigm' is being
defended because it is in fact as true as we can to date make a theory be. This
doesn't, of course, make it 'the whole truth' (or for that matter, 'nothing but
the truth'). However, it is going to be difficult to accurately describe any
meaningful supplementation of that theory when we may not even be able to
construct devices which would be able to measure things which are not of our
temporal expanse; that is to say, if dark matter could only be detected by
mechanisms made out of the same kind of material, then... ?
No meaningful observations can be made outside of time; but if the nature of
time is different for dark matter than it is for what we have to date
experienced through our observations of terrestrial matter...
John Morton.
>>>><<<<
From: Andrew Fildes <afildes@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Subject: [OM] Re: Now for some totally different photography
Date: Fri, 6 Apr 2007 17:41:18 +1000
The essence of Kuhn's argument is that this does not happen until the
anomalies pile up to the point where they fall under any reasonable
challenge. New young scientists are actually inducted into the
conventional wisdom and had better go along with it or they don't get
a job or a research grant. In fact it's more likely to be an
established academic with tenure and a reputation who is going to
rock the boat. Hawking can afford to cyhange his mind. Aging
paradigms are often (not always) defended to the death by the
establishment, beyond all point of reason.
What you seem to be describing is the way in which scientists 'think'
that they work. :-)
Andrew Fildes
afildes@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
On 06/04/2007, at 12:17 PM, Winsor Crosby wrote:
> Of course it is the young ones with fresh intellects who will jump on
> things they see as correct. Defending the current paradigm is not a
> weakness. It makes the argument much sharper and the possibilty of
> truth. It is the very essence of the scientific method, I think. The
> creativity of the defense is all to the good.
John Morton
http://OriginOfWriting.com
==============================================
List usage info: http://www.zuikoholic.com
List nannies: olympusadmin@xxxxxxxxxx
==============================================
|