tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7612793.post113942873407658096..comments2024-03-27T23:59:49.801+00:00Comments on Stoat: Methane and KuhnWilliam M. Connolleyhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05836299130680534926noreply@blogger.comBlogger6125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7612793.post-1140516278454954992006-02-21T10:04:00.000+00:002006-02-21T10:04:00.000+00:00Old before his time I guess... :-) Actually I thin...Old before his time I guess... :-) Actually I thing dr Stringy accepts the obs; he just denies the future.William M. Connolleyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05836299130680534926noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7612793.post-1140480534943626042006-02-21T00:08:00.000+00:002006-02-21T00:08:00.000+00:00A string theorist widely called Dr *#&% M*^£ is on...A string theorist widely called Dr *#&% M*^£ is only about 32 and he denies global warming.<BR/><BR/>Don't tell me that Stoat dismisses him as a mere "anomaly" or "recalcitrant instance"?<BR/><BR/>:-)Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7612793.post-1140095654546756712006-02-16T13:14:00.000+00:002006-02-16T13:14:00.000+00:00I think this is based on a mis-reading (or more li...I think this is based on a mis-reading (or more likely a not-reading) of Kuhn himself. Kuhn specifically mentions all this; old theories die away as those brought up with them die off. Fairly relevant to GW: most of the septics are old, many emerius.William M. Connolleyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05836299130680534926noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7612793.post-1140033226204340292006-02-15T19:53:00.000+00:002006-02-15T19:53:00.000+00:00Problems with Kuhn's analysisDr Imre Lakatos, Scie...Problems with Kuhn's analysis<BR/><BR/>Dr Imre Lakatos, Science and Pseudo-Science, pages 96-102 of Godfrey Vesey (editor), Philosophy in the Open, Open University Press, Milton Keynes, 1974:<BR/><BR/>‘Scientists have thick skins. They do not abandon a theory merely because facts contradict it. They normally either invent some rescue hypothesis to explain what they then call a mere anomaly or, if they cannot explain the anomaly, they ignore it, and direct their attention to other problems. Note that scientists talk about anomalies, recalcitrant instances, not refutations. History of science, of course, is full of accounts of how crucial experiments allegedly killed theories. But such accounts are fabricated long after the theory had been abandoned. ... What really count are dramatic, unexpected, stunning predictions: a few of them are enough to tilt the balance; where theory lags behind the facts, we are dealing with miserable degenerating research programmes. Now, how do scientific revolutions come about? If we have two rival research programmes, and one is progressing while the other is degenerating, scientists tend to join the progressive programme. This is the rationale of scientific revolutions. ... Criticism is not a Popperian quick kill, by refutation. Important criticism is always constructive: there is no refutation without a better theory. Kuhn is wrong in thinking that scientific revolutions are sudden, irrational changes in vision. The history of science refutes both Popper and Kuhn: on close inspection both Popperian crucial experiments and Kuhnian revolutions turn out to be myths: what normally happens is that progressive research programmes replace degenerating ones.’nigehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03402194253543690982noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7612793.post-1139512265246971122006-02-09T19:11:00.000+00:002006-02-09T19:11:00.000+00:00You are exactly correct - I almost wrote that into...You are exactly correct - I almost wrote that into the post, so its not a tangent at all. It is a problem with Nature. As someone at our discussion meeting said, its a shame in a way that this got into Nature, it would have been better published somewhere quiet, discussed and replicated/extended/refuted, and *then* brought into the public.<BR/><BR/>Perhaps Nature could actually have a section for stuff like this, and label it "preliminary results" or somesuch...William M. Connolleyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05836299130680534926noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7612793.post-1139503141719308202006-02-09T16:39:00.000+00:002006-02-09T16:39:00.000+00:00John Fleck says -If you would allow me to fly off ...John Fleck says -<BR/><BR/>If you would allow me to fly off on a complete tangent here....<BR/><BR/>I think this is a good example of the problem created by the Nature-media nexus. You've done a good job of sketching out the problems with interpreting the paper, which puts in clearly in the realm of "interesting result, much more work needed before we understand what's going on." But the public's and media's misunderstanding of the Nature stamp of approval led to this study being treated as something that answered questions rather than raising them.<BR/><BR/>Bryden's Nature paper on the thermohaline circulation is a similar example, which was trumpeted in the media as a definitive result when it fact it's really just raising interesting questions.<BR/><BR/>More research is needed.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com