Reddit reviews The Structure of Scientific Revolutions: 50th Anniversary Edition
We found 24 Reddit comments about The Structure of Scientific Revolutions: 50th Anniversary Edition. Here are the top ones, ranked by their Reddit score.
University of Chicago Press
I think philosophy still has a lot to offer. Especially in the fields of morality, epistemology, and psychology. I have a minor in Philosophy of Science, so I'm practically an expert ;).
EDIT:
>Which explains why philosophy hasn't came up with anything new on the last 2 x centuries
Hell, I would argue that some of the most philosophically important ideas were had in the 20th century (Kuhn's The Structure of Scientific Revolutions is a great example) and in many ways, those ideas have shaped science into what we know it as today. I hate to say it but it seems to me that if they said "philosophy is dead," they are saying it in ignorance of modern philosophy's very important contributions to science and society.
Philosophy is a big field, and without good guidance it's really difficult to make progress. Thus, if you're really interested in the subject I recommend eventually taking classes. You don't need to be enrolled in a University to take classes; there are many online courses available. For example, Shelly Kagan and Tamar Gendler (both excellent teachers, as well as first-rate researchers in their sub-disciplines) teach online philosophy classes through Open Yale Courses. iTunes U has some good stuff too; you can search around for particular topics that might interest you.
As for books, I recommend starting with something accessible, like Bertrand Russell's Problems of Philosophy. Depending on your interests, you might also enjoy Thomas Kuhn's Structure of Scientific Revolutions and A.J. Ayer's Language, Truth, and Logic. In all cases, though, I recommend having some guidance as you read, which would require some kind of teacher, as in the online resources I mentioned above.
To follow up on the atmospheric effects thing, the amount of radioactive carbon in the atmosphere is critical for radiocarbon dating. Notice the plot of carbon in the atmosphere. Compare it with this (possibly paywalled, sorry if it is) paper on carbon since the early 1900s here. This kind of bump should be noticeable if our ancestors were engaged in large scale nuclear weapon use.
Even small scale use should be noticeable as well. Uranium ore is relatively noticeable, due to its radioactive properties. If our ancestors were mining it, we probably would have noticed (information on the ore here). Furthermore, Nuclear weapons require pretty pure isotopes, particularly of uranium. The process of isotope separation is a long and complex, requiring complex devices such as distillers and centrifuges that probably need to be made out of metal. Considering the scale and complexity of the operation, it is difficult to believe mines and distilleries would go unnoticed.
And last of all, the technology required for producing nuclear weapons has other uses as well. The distillation process is key in the creation of almost every chemical we use, from alcohol to polymers to dies to soaps. If our ancestors were so skilled at this process that they could create nukes, why not create nylon too?
Our ancestors were most certainly not stupid, but we stand on the shoulders of giants. Our knowledge today is built on the knowledge of those before us. It is a long discussion to catalog all the scientific advances that led us to where we are today, here and here are a couple decent books to start.
You should read Kuhn's The Structure of Scientific Revolutions, arguably the most important work in the philosophy of science (yes, this is a real and respected field of study within the discipline of philosophy) of the last century. It won't undercut or jeopardize your confidence in the utility of science as a practice, but it will give you a much better understanding of how science is practiced and why science is useful. It's not very long and you'll be a better scientist for having read and understood it, as well as a better thinker in general.
In some ways institutions are like people. (They are, after all, made up of people.) Imagine that you personally had been giving incorrect advice for fifty years, and the correct advice turns out to be almost the opposite of what you've been saying. You are approaching retirement, and you are being asked to admit that your whole career was based on a lie, to admit that you have been giving advice that kills people this whole time. You'd be in denial. You would fight with the new studies. You would point to ambiguities in the data. You would look for any alternative before, finally, admitting that your life was worse than a waste, because it caused immense harm to thousands, millions, of people. I don't disagree with other comments that money is part of the issue, but I believe it goes much deeper than that.
Thomas Kuhn wrote a famous book about how difficult it is for science to shift from one "paradigm" to another. Sometimes a whole generation of old scientists must die before the new model can be accepted. The classic example is believing that the Earth goes around the Sun. (Also see here.)
Also, much of the science is apparently not as clear cut as it seems. Gary Taubes has probably done as much to promote the carb/insulin/obesity hypothesis than anyone, but even admits that more studies need to be done to really prove the hypothesis. That's why he started, with Peter Attia, The Nutrition Science Initiative to fund those studies.
The bad news is, it could be many years before the national nutritional institutions come around. The good news is, we don't have to wait! I'll be really curious to see how this plays out, when it finally comes time for the old fogies to admit that they've been giving exactly the wrong advice for fifty years.
For two of the most well know (albeit conflicting) looks at how science changes over time, you can check out Conjectures and Refutations: The Growth of Scientific Knowledge by Karl Popper and The Structure of Scientific Revolutions by Thomas Khun.
See also the Philosophy of Science, Science Studies, and the History of Science.
And there are also subreddits devoted to /r/PhilosophyofScience, this is a good introductory post
Also, this comic
> knowledge of philosophy, so I was thinking that reading in that area may be helpful but I wouldn't know where to start.
If you're looking for a primer on the philosophy of science, Oxford University Press has a great introductory book (in fact, many of the "Very Short Introductions" are worth a read).
There is also, of course, the classic "Structure of Scientific Revolutions" by Thomas Kuhn that questions the supposed linearity of scientific progress.
You'd be surprised. Take it from a PhD physics student that is also interested in history. I recommend this book (link to Amazon page) for a short overview.
I'd encourage anyone interested in the topic to read The Structure of Scientific Revolutions by Thomas S. Kuhn.
> They point me to foundations and think tanks that publish "creation science" and credentialed scientists who don't agree with the "mainstream" conclusions in their field.
I challenge you to read On the Structure of Scientific Revolutions by Thomas Kuhn. In his book, Kuhn presents his theory on Scientific Revolutions, how they start, how they end, and all the in-between. Kuhn is not a Creation Scientist, but a secular philosopher. What I'm about to suggest is not my own personal view, but I do find it interesting and challenging. I'm not a proponent of Creation Science nor am I a denier of Climate Change.
What I think Kuhn's book will do is show you a different way of looking at Science and challenge what you think you may know about how it works. His thesis somewhat goes like this: In the past Science always works within a certain paradigm, or worldview, but at some point the most recent research begins to contradict the paradigm, leading to a crisis. Some new "revolutionary" idea comes along that makes sense of the crisis and a new paradigm is established, leading to a Scientific Revolution. A good example is when Galileo proposed a Heliocentric model of the Solar System. Previously, the paradigm proposed a Geocentric model, but Galileo's idea was revolutionary. He was greatly persecuted because of his break with "Established" science. However, today we know that Galileo was indeed correct.
Some proponents of Creation Science use Kuhn's theory to show that this movement by many credentialed scientists in opposition to Darwinism indicate that we're on the verge of a crisis. They're betting that Creation Science could be the next Scientific Revolution as theorized by Kuhn. The big takeaway here is a different way of looking at current science and the scientists that oppose it. Now, this does not mean that any or all "unorthodox" scientists are right, but when a large body of them openly oppose the established paradigm and a large body of research exists that contradict it, one can rightly say that a crisis is at hand.
> Why is climate change any different?
What makes climate change different is that there is not a large body of science that contradicts the mainstream views nor a large body of scientists that oppose it. This could be argued in the case of Darwinism, but not so in the case of climate change.
> Empiricism, reproducibility, falsifiability are very specific and important things that separate science from philosophy.
Except they don't. Scientific progress is often NOT based on empiricism, reproducibility and falsifiability. It is, sometimes, based on cultural shifts or the fact that certain research lines have become exhausted and aren't interesting any more. Some theoretical physicists have said the only reason they started working on string theory was that it was interesting and there was nothing else going on. They did so even though they knew string theory was probably impossible to verify.
Here, read a book about it (oh, it's by a philosopher): http://www.amazon.com/The-Structure-Scientific-Revolutions-Anniversary/dp/0226458121/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1408850140&sr=8-1&keywords=kuhn
While these are not all specifically about religion, here are a few things that I think everyone should read at some point in their lives.
The Structure of Scientific Revolutions (this is where the term 'paradigm shift' came from).
Karl Popper on politics
Karl Popper on science
Get some historical perspective on the philosophy of science
The Power of Myth
A History of God
The Structure of Scientific Revolutions is the go-to for Kuhn's ideas.
Thomas Kuhn explored the subjectivity of science in this seminal work 50 years ago.
Ever heard the word "paradigm" thrown around by idealogues? The concept of paradigm thought came from this book about science, not from post-modern social sciences.
This was one of the chief books in my contemporary political theory course in college.
I took two phil of science courses during undergrad. The first covered Philosophy of Science: The Central Issues by Cover, Curd, and Pincock. The second (by a different instructor) covered Philosophy of Science: A Very Short Introduction followed by The Structure of Scientific Revolutions, The Scientific Background of Modern Philosophy, and more readings from the Cover, Curd, and Pincock book. Though it required more reading, the second was more beneficial and clarified issues brought up in the Cover, Curd, and Pincock book. I hope that helps.
No problem. I recommend The Structure of Scientific Revolutions if you want some insight into how ideas in science change and how old theories are replaced with new ones. Honestly, that correspondence is so so so so so so so so wrong.
​
>The Structure of Scientific Revolutions (1962; second edition 1970; third edition 1996; fourth edition 2012) is a book about the history of science by the philosopher Thomas S. Kuhn. Its publication was a landmark event in the history, philosophy, and sociology of scientific knowledge. Kuhn challenged the then prevailing view of progress in "normal science". Normal scientific progress was viewed as "development-by-accumulation" of accepted facts and theories. Kuhn argued for an episodic model in which periods of such conceptual continuity in normal science were interrupted by periods of revolutionary science. The discovery of "anomalies" during revolutions in science leads to new paradigms. New paradigms then ask new questions of old data, move beyond the mere "puzzle-solving" of the previous paradigm, change the rules of the game and the "map" directing new research.[1]
>
>
>
>For example, Kuhn's analysis of the Copernican Revolution emphasized that, in its beginning, it did not offer more accurate predictions of celestial events, such as planetary positions, than the Ptolemaic system, but instead appealed to some practitioners based on a promise of better, simpler solutions that might be developed at some point in the future. Kuhn called the core concepts of an ascendant revolution its "paradigms" and thereby launched this word into widespread analogical use in the second half of the 20th century. Kuhn's insistence that a paradigm shift was a mélange of sociology, enthusiasm and scientific promise, but not a logically determinate procedure, caused an uproar in reaction to his work. Kuhn addressed concerns in the 1969 postscript to the second edition. For some commentators The Structure of Scientific Revolutions introduced a realistic humanism into the core of science, while for others the nobility of science was tarnished by Kuhn's introduction of an irrational element into the heart of its greatest achievements.
Entrepreneur Reading List
Computer Science Grad School Reading List
Video Game Development Reading List
If you are going to go around the internet insulting people over something you don't understand, at least read a book on the topic
https://www.amazon.com/Structure-Scientific-Revolutions-50th-Anniversary/dp/0226458121/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1521034395&sr=8-1&keywords=the+structure+of+scientific+revolutions
You may discover that science doesn't actually demand blind devotion to its theories, it doesn't respond to scrutiny of measurements with insults, and trying to shout down people who disagree with your interpretation of a dataset is not only unscientific, it's a sad and pathetic way to waste of time (especially when you clearly don't even understand the measurements themselves, you just think "measurements=science=ultimate unquestionable truth"). Quite the opposite, science is composed of people questioning things that are supposed to be taken for granted, trying to break theories, and trying to falsify ideas so that those theories can pull an Obi-Wan "if you strike me down I will only become more powerful" and we build a better theory out of the ashes of the old one. and if someone disagrees with a widely accepted theory, that can be a good thing because it forces those who do accept that theory to stay on their toes and to keep their shit straight.
My guess is that born in another time and era, you'd be the religious type, eager to force whatever belief was passed onto you down someone else's throat, despite having a tenuous and superficial grasp on its core tenets.
The Structure of Scientific Revolutions by Thomas Kuhn
Wikipedia article
Amazon
https://www.amazon.com/Code-Language-Computer-Hardware-Software/dp/0735611319
https://www.amazon.com/dp/0226458121
https://www.amazon.com/dp/0226750213
https://www.amazon.com/dp/0201835959
https://www.amazon.com/dp/0393306763
https://www.amazon.com/dp/039331152X
https://www.amazon.com/dp/0393061329
> Science. Religion has been fighting it for thousands of years.
I'm afraid that to even assume that science and religion existed as distinct concepts or endeavours thousands of years ago is a bit naïve, and this idea that they are eternally opposed is a very simplistic view that reflects the biases of anticlerical 19th Century historians more than the actual facts—it's only really been defended by people with a grudge against religion since a reappraisal of the subject in the 1950s, 60s, and 70s (and especially since the reappraisal by James Moore in The Post-Darwinian Controversies). Here are a few books that could help you develop a richer understanding of the historical relationship between science and religion.
These would probably be illuminating reading as well.
> Here is just another surrender by a guy at the top of the money chain.
No one interested in the subject should be under the impression that what the Pope has said is anything new. Eminent Catholic theologians like John Henry Newman found Darwin's theory of natural selection consistent with Christianity when it was published, and Pope Pius XII very famously affirmed that there was no intrinsic conflict between them in his 1950 encyclical Humani generis. As for the Big Bang, it is downright foolish to characterise the Church as "surrendering" to a theory that was formulated by a Catholic priest in the first place.
Ok, so before I get into everything I have to preface this with some details about me.
I debated for 4 years in college and have been a debate judge ever since, this means I have 7 years of continued debate experience and most of my friends are debaters. The type of debate I did was called British Parliamentary which is perfectly tuned to train you to do well on the writing portion of the GRE. It was all about encountering impromptu topics and being able to make well structured and well sourced arguments while having no physical evidence at your disposal. This taught me to think of very complex and detailed arguments very quickly, I think this is the key to getting a six on the exam.
So, look up BP debate online or on youtube and watch some of the debates and you'll get an understanding on how people like me think about arguments. If you expose yourself to these ideas/habits you'll be fine. I did about 45 minutes of preparation for the test in total not including the 3-4 practice essays I wrote in the practice tests I took leading up to the test.
You can also go to intelligencesquaredus.org and they have a bunch of great debates with experts that also think in the same fashion.
Now to the pointers. First, if you want to learn how to use the Toulmin model to structure your arguments, cut down on fluff and bring your salient points to the table feel free to PM me since it's an entirely different post all by it self.
Before you even get to the test, I would suggest you familiarize yourself with some science philosophy because questions about scientific institutions or fields of inquiry or business come up all of the time and the lessons taught in these books teach you content you can use in the argumentative section, and things to look out for in the assumption/logic section. I based the bulk of my argument section on "The Structure of Scientific revolutions, by Thomas Kuhn. I would also highly suggest checking out [The Logic of Scientific Discovery, by Karl Popper] (https://www.amazon.com/Logic-Scientific-Discovery-Routledge-Classics/dp/0415278449/ref=sr_1_3?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1474048437&sr=1-3&keywords=karl+popper). Both of these texts not only give you a great picture of how science functions, they also give you substantial insight into the reasoning behind science and other ventures. This is crucial to pull from in the logic/assumption section.
Before we go on, I'll give you the essay topic that I recently encountered, I'll refer back to it throughout the post: "In regards to fields of inquiry, younger professionals are more likely to make massive contributions to their fields than older professionals".
Before I start actually writing the essay, I take scratch paper and outline my argument. I give myself about 7-8 minutes for this (we used to get 15 minutes to make a 7 minute argument in BP, which includes getting to your room, you can practice this ability by looking up BP topics. If you can't find some, PM me and I'll send you some). I don't put together all of my arguments in full form, I just write "tag lines" pertaining to the gist of my argument. For example, in my essay I would write:
I: Kuhn, structure of sci revs: Paradigm. How young=better
A. What is paradigm
B. Young scientists unique to push paradigm
a. Older scientists base livelihood on old assumption/paradigm
This is more words than you need. You're not going to refer back to this word for word, instead it's a mental exercise to keep you organized. You came up with the ideas, so you're not going to forget why you put something in the linear order if it is linearized. I wouldn't forget what I was going to talk about in regards to assumptions/paradigms if I put down old scis base livelihood on old stuff.
This model helps organize your thoughts so you don't have to waste time thinking of what's coming next, you can just throw a narrative down on the page. I think I wrote about 1000 words per essay this way. Most guides say you need to write above 600 words to get above a 5.
When I'm thinking of arguments, I put myself in the shoes of the people I'm being asked to discuss. I think about the obstacles that an old or young professor or business owner confronts when trying to make a massive contribution. I think about what their crisis is, along with what their strengths are. I balance the strengths and weaknesses of the competing parties. I also think about the people in their environments, how are they going to treat the people in question. Will their peers respect them, not respect them, will they engage with them or let the researchers show that they should be paid attention to first. There's a lot to think about with this, but if you put yourself in their shoes, all of these characteristics play themselves out in front of you very quickly. This is why practicing those debate topics are so important, it trains your mind to think quickly about these alternatives.
At the top, I used a phrase to begin that was relevant to the topic at hand. I probably started off saying something along the lines of "the life of a researcher is chaotic, the notion of publish or perish lies in wait, hovering over everything you do". This is preferable to simply restating the prompt. Remember that graders only spend a couple minutes on each essay, and if you seem boiler-plate from the get go, you're going to get a boiler-plate grade.
Like many debaters, I like to do an overview at the top of my essay. Once I get my introduction finished with a hint of where I'm going to go with my arguments, I then make just the claims of my arguments and perhaps the impacts/solvency (check out Toulmin) in the second paragraph. This provides the reader with a clear line of what he/she expects to see in my essay and it makes the arguments seem more clear to them because they know what to expect.
This was something along the lines of: "The arguments present in this paper will consist of analysis of the notion of the paradigm and how it contributes to advancement of the entire pursuit of science. Following this, the ramifications of tenure on a scientists career will be expressed and critiqued. Finally, the idea on how infrastructure access could hamstring younger scientists and thus, allowing for older researchers to take command will be discussed." This takes very little time to write, but it's very helpful for the grader because now they know where to look for, for development of arguments and the power of your reasoning. If you don't do this, it's possible that the grader will overlook some of your points and you may get a worse grade by human error.
The rest of the paper writes itself if you have a solid outline. You just need to make sure that all of your points have a "why" to them. Why is your claim (assumption at the beginning of your argument) correct, you should use reason and substance to make these seem true. Don't leave anything as an assumption.
Furthermore, I think the single most important characteristic in making a great argument is establishing what we call uniqueness. This is establishing why the thing you say is happening is actually CAUSING the thing to happen. You make it clear through your arguments that there are no other justifications for what your saying is true is actually true. I have a couple arguments on this one. First that older scientists have built their livelihood and careers on the assumptions and paradigms that they helped create/maintain, so they have developed a unique myopia to other alternatives that younger scientists haven't yet developed. Furthermore, young scientists are in a unique position to need to see things differently so they can make the contributions that lead to tenure. My entire second argument is about how tenure forces younger scientists to make big contributions and how it makes older scientists lazy because I ground the discussion in terms of publish or perish, up until you get tenure. The emphasis here is on mutual exclusivity, if "this" happens "that" can't happen. If a person doesn't have tenure, they're not safe and they have to publish exciting new things. If a person has developed or instilled a paradigm, they (I would argue) can't find another paradigm because it threatens everything they've worked for so they develop a selective myopia. Now this may not be the objective truth, but it comes across as a solid argument.
This really depends upon your interests, but my own "Hey read this" list includes:
Sophie's World for a general and accessible introduction to various philosophical systems.
Ethical Theories: A Book of Readings with Revisions for a survey of ethical works.
The Structure of Scientific Revolutions for some history and philosophy of science.
Consciousness Explained for some philosophy of mind.
A more traditional, analytical, list might include:
Plato's Republic
Aristotle's Nichomachean Ethics, Metaphysics
Aquinas' Summa Theologica
Descartes' Meditations
Hume's An Enquiry Concerning Human Understanding
Mill's Utilitarianism
Kant's Groundwork of the Metaphysics of Morals, Prolegomena to Any
Future Metaphysics
Nietzshe's Beyond Good and Evil, The Birth of Tragedy
The most influential philosophy book I ever read was "The Structure of Scientific Revoloutions" by Thomas Kuhn.
This single book affected my worldview more than any other book or course. It deals specifically with the nature and process of scientific revolution, but reaches much further than the title claims. I highly recommend this book.
Edit: Added author