Thomas Kuhn Wasn't So Bad

https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/cross-check/thomas-kuhn-wasnt-so-bad/

by pseudolus • 7 years ago

143 58 7 years ago

blogs.scientificamerican.com

bhouston3• 7 years ago

I loved Thomas Kuhn's book and I think it applies to most areas of innovation.

In backend development microservices really is revolutionary.

React/redux is equally revolutionary.

Changed everything. And then it holds stable for a bit while new ways of doing things percolate but not yet really take over.

eropple• 7 years ago

How are microservices "revolutionary"? How did they "change everything"? SOAs aren't new. Microservices don't add anything new except perhaps a pathological edge case when implemented uniwsely and the need for additional ceremony because request tracing across huge whacks of microservices is hard.

village-idiot2• 7 years ago

On top of that, React and Redux are the packaging of theoretical concepts that have been around for a while. The UX is good, which is why they’re popular, but revolutionary is quite a reach.

zwkrt2• 7 years ago

I listened to a podcast with Errol Morris on the same subject, and got a similar impression that there was no need to be so harsh. IIRC Errol's main academic argument against Kuhn was that he simultaneously touted his idea of "paradigm shift", but also that the best way to study the history of science was to be very meticulous about only making inferences directly from primary materials. Morris's concern was that since we are in a different paradigm than say Newton, the inferences we make from his works will be tainted from it own viewpoint. In other words, you can't have it both ways--either past ways of thinking are unreachable or "paradigm shifts" are not real.

This was all tied into Morris's views on epistemology more generally. He directed The Thin Blue Line, which was the first crime documentary with dramatic reenactment. Reenactment can be argued to be inauthentic, but he argued that it is no more problematic than taking someone's verbal account, as was common in documentaries at the time. In some sense by putting pictures to words the director can ensure that the victims account is misinterpreted as little as possible.

zwkrt2• 7 years ago

This is the podcast, Hi Phi nation: https://m.soundcloud.com/hiphination/episode-9-the-ashes-of-...

kaycebasques• 7 years ago

I remember reading The Structure of Scientific Revolutions in a seminar on philosophies of history and being struck by how clear Kuhn’s writing and thinking was.

This quote from the article sums up why the book resonated with me:

Kuhn is a realist, in that he believes in some external, material reality beyond our language and cultural constraints, but he is simultaneously a relativist in that he has no access to nor can say anything definitive about that outside world independent of language and the conceptual categories that lead us to think this or that about external reality.

The gist of his thesis, if I recall correctly, is that scientists are indeed progressing towards a deeper understanding of the universe, but the process gets messy sometimes. When we hit an inflection point, and the current paradigm for a field (such as physics) breaks down, multiple theories emerge to restore the internal logic of the field, and the proponents of each camp compete with each other for dominance. It gets messy when some scientists, who have dedicated their lives to the old paradigm, are confronted with the idea that their paradigm is outdated, and therefore their life’s work is kinda outdated. Obviously you can look at it another way and say that we’re all in it together and their work led us to discover the limits of the paradigm, but the reality seems to be that this is a harsh reality to live through, and the old paradigm scientists get reactionary and sometimes actively obstruct the paradigm shift. But the truth eventually comes out when the new paradigm’s theories correctly explain the problems that the old paradigm couldn’t explain, and these new theories get backed by experimental evidence. I think Kuhn goes so far as to say that sometimes the old paradigm can only be laid to rest when its last proponents die.

gboudrias3• 7 years ago

The gist of his thesis, if I recall correctly, is that scientists are indeed progressing towards a deeper understanding of the universe

Interpreting Kuhn is an art unto itself, but I find rather that he is saying progressed can't be measured and therefore can't be inferred. He wouldn't be much of a relativist otherwise! I'm not sure but I think he uses the word "incommensurability", which implies an absence of indicators of progress (if not him then certainly some interpretations of his book use that very word).

This is not to say that I agree, but it's the cold logic of it that makes him hard to refute. Rather, pragmatists like me have resolved to ignore him and enjoy our iPhones and lasers.

grey-area2• 7 years ago

Nothing in Kuhn precludes iphones or lasers.

His critique is more of the way the history of science is presented (as an inevitable succession of triumphs on the way to a single objective truth, each building on the last), than a rejection of objective progress or the scientific method.

dwaltrip2• 7 years ago

Not being able to measure progress is not the same thing as it not existing. I left the book with the impression that progress does occur, it's just far messier than we would like.

coldtea2• 7 years ago

I'm not sure but I think he uses the word "incommensurability", which implies an absence of indicators of progress (if not him then certainly some interpretations of his book use that very word). (...) Rather, pragmatists like me have resolved to ignore him and enjoy our iPhones and lasers.

Well, Kuhn was concerned with science and epistemology, so not progress in the general sense if I'm not mistaken.

Technological progress (from simpler to more complex technologies) could hardly be refuted, even from Kuhn.

But whether iPhones and lasers are progress in the value sense, that (with a logic similar to Kuhn's thoughts on science) depends on our value framework. They're not irrefutable progress even for all of us in today's cultural climate (some e.g. consider them regressions regarding experiencing the world directly, intimacy with others, privacy, etc, and think we'd be better off without them, even if we lose portable social media apps, global internet access from our pocket, etc).

Even less so for other cultural contexts (and we don't even have to go to the past; would the Amish, for example, consider an iPhone "progress"?)

80776282• 7 years ago

Kuhn's a realist... someone needs to tell the Humanities departments this because it's definitely not the interpretation they've been running with!

Animats• 7 years ago

No, Kuhn represented the "pro-humanities" view. The hard line was from Karl Popper: if it's not falsifiable, it's not science. If you can clearly demonstrate a violation of F = m*a, it's gone.

Popper's standards exclude sociology, psychology, theology, economics, and most of the "soft" sciences. This annoyed many people who claim to be doing science. Kuhn was willing to consider them science, but had to redefine science to make that work.

Falsifiable theories allow reliable predictions. So they lead to engineering, and stuff that works. Although Popper's position is currently unpopular, he wasn't wrong.

kontorStol• 7 years ago

"I think Kuhn goes so far as to say that sometimes the old paradigm can only be laid to rest when its last proponents die." Or sometimes the old paradigm turns into religion

Merrill• 7 years ago

"A new scientific truth does not triumph by convincing its opponents and making them see the light, but rather because its opponents eventually die, and a new generation grows up that is familiar with it." -- Max Planck https://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Max_Planck

Or the shorthand version "Science advances one funeral at at a time."

FabHK• 7 years ago

how clear Kuhn’s writing and thinking was

I thought there were, famously, several dozen slightly different (incommensurable?) definitions (or interpretations) of "paradigm" alone in the text.

dmazin• 7 years ago

Structure of Scientific Revolutions was incredibly revelatory for me. I did not even realize there was any backlash against Kuhn except that his work is sometimes co-opted by pseudo-scientists and that he was over-reliant on a previous work (iirc).

acqq2• 7 years ago

His book is one of mentioned here, and I believe rightly:

https://www.chronicle.com/article/The-Books-That-Wouldn-t-Di...

Also on HN:

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=19423369

acqq2• 7 years ago

Specifically, the view I support, as well as a critique of Kuhn and those inspired by him is the one described here:

https://www.inventionofscience.com/

andybak• 7 years ago

First I ever heard of Kuhn was in the margin notes that came back from my teacher on a sociology essay about something or other. I was 17 and was very pleased to find out that my random musings were backed up by this chap with proper credentials.

Wish I still had that essay. I'd love to know if I had magically discovered Kuhn's thesis independently at the age of 17 - or as is more likely - spouted some vagueness that resembled his ideas if you squinted enough...

dredmorbius3• 7 years ago

Diving through dusty corners of numerous fields I'm finding many of my lunatic ravings have established precedent with pedigree. I find it validating.

There are few truly novel ideas, and yet too, few which truly emerge into public consciousness, and many of those are themselves wrong (or at least gravely flawed), or greatly misunderstood. Often because they've been misrepresented.

Keep on thinking and reading!

salty_biscuits• 7 years ago

That old saying "a month in the lab can save you a few hours in the library"

woodandsteel• 7 years ago

"Kuhn is a realist, in that he believes in some external, material reality beyond our language and cultural constraints, but he is simultaneously a relativist in that he has no access to nor can say anything definitive about that outside world independent of language and the conceptual categories that lead us to think this or that about external reality."

So Kuhn seems to believe that the biologists are all wrong when they claim our brains have been formed by evolution to look at reality in certain universal ways. Instead he seems to be taking the Cartesian position that human minds exist outside the material realm. Most philosophers today would disagree.

dwaltrip2• 7 years ago

That quote isn't saying that minds exist outside of material reality, but that minds can only conceive of approximate reconstructed representations of material reality, and never "directly access" material reality itself.

baxtr• 7 years ago

Anyone know if Kuhn was ever applied to health theories? E.g. smoking is good, then got bad. Vegan etc.?

wolf550e• 7 years ago

Kuhn's theory certainly applies to history of physiology because that is a science. But most of what you think about as health theories (e.g. is doing X good for you) are not scientific, they are marketing for products and services or clickbaity misrepresentations of weak studies. Basically, Kuhn applies to NEJM but not to Cosmopolitan.

zaat• 7 years ago

While I highly appreciated Kuhn when I was reading The Structure, this sentence from the article:

Yes, Kuhn could be a bully, especially towards anyone who challenged him, such as Errol or our late colleague Harold Dorn. But for someone like myself, non-threatening and interested in science and the Enlightenment, Kuhn was kind and took his responsibilities seriously as a teacher

seems like an accurate description of the worst teachers I had in college, those I truely despised. Those who couldn't care less for an enthusiastic students while enjoying the superiority feelings of teaching the weakest students.

klyrs• 7 years ago

Yeah, this strikes me as a problematic point to gloss over. Brilliance should not excuse abusive behavior. When an academic's ego gets in the way of honest discourse, that's a fair critique. Indeed, mass-murderers are often "nice" to the people they interact with -- but when people write those stories, this is often presented as a point of confusion and regret -- and never as an excuse for the problematic behavior.

yters• 7 years ago

Sounds like he couldn't handle people trying to shift his paradigm.

mcguire• 7 years ago

"Yes, Kuhn could be a bully, especially towards anyone who challenged him, such as Errol or our late colleague Harold Dorn. But for someone like myself, non-threatening and interested in science and the Enlightenment, Kuhn was kind and took his responsibilities seriously as a teacher. The first draft of my paper for his thermodynamics seminar was a disaster, but he took the time and trouble (and only 1-1/2 pages of single-spaced typed response) toward guiding me to see its flaws, and he taught me the simple, but invaluable lesson that before you write, you have to know what you want to say."

This reads like a serious case of Stockholm syndrome or an abused spouse.

Kinnard• 7 years ago

Which I think is common in the master-student relationship including when invaluable lessons are being passed on. An effed up reality.

cf Pai Mei in Kill Bill or Sufi marabouts and their talibés in Senegal.

ourmandave• 7 years ago

"Good night Westley. Good work. Sleep well. I'll most likely kill you in the morning."

wahern• 7 years ago

After a certain point in a career you realize that time spent coddling and being coddled is simply wasted. As a teacher you realize that even though you can be (and likely are wrong), your job is to stand firm and be direct. If you have no concrete reason to doubt yourself, why be equivocal with someone? And if you do have substantial doubts, why would you risk poisoning the well? In my experience, good professors are both more direct but also quick to shut up because there's no good response--either because a criticism is legitimate or because the student is just being argumentative, but either way there's not much else to say that the student shouldn't be capable of figuring out themselves.

As a student you realize that instructors aren't infallible and that you're not only free but expected to accept or reject what you're told on its merits. And, frankly, this is much easier to do when an instructor isn't equivocal--when they state plainly and with conviction their beliefs. If everybody is mature enough, it's implicitly understood that people can be and are wrong. Unfortunately, not everybody is mature enough.

This is true of leadership more generally. The job of a leader is to put themselves on the line. By being direct and forceful there's never any doubt about where responsibility for an idea lies, and there's no back peddling if they didn't equivocate. It's more difficult to say that an idea wasn't given a proper defense if the defender literally puts it all on the line; where there's no reason to doubt they didn't explore every reasonable criticism.

It's the same thing with writing. As an undergraduate I hated writing papers because the thought of committing to paper an idea I was unsure of seemed wrong. But that's not the point of writing; the point is to commit to paper the best defense you can think of at that very moment, and to do so without equivocation. The criticisms can and will come, as they should. If you equivocate, however, you're softening the blows of subsequent criticisms, which is a disservice to everybody, but especially yourself. Making yourself vulnerable to criticism is a very difficult thing to do.

Especially once you get into graduate and professional studies, the professor's job is present their ideas firmly. To do anything less is a disservice to students and the truth. This is easier for some people than others. People who are legitimately unsympathetic a-holes will, of course, have an easier time at being firm. You can usually differentiate the non a-holes as they're more likely to invest more time in thoughtful, personalized criticism (e.g. 1 1/2 pages of comments). But that takes tremendous effort and patience, and even the non a-holes don't always have the time or ability to do that. The best gift they can give you is serving themselves up as a punching bag.

Thomas Kuhn Wasn't So Bad

Related Stories