dagblog - Comments for "Quantum Corner: Introduction"

I see this was written in

emerson — Sun, 14 Nov 2010 20:23:33 +0000

In reply to Quantum Corner: Introduction

I see this was written in 2009 but hope you are still considering this because it sounds cool. I would love to see you create more on this. I have been trying unsuccessfully for years to start a String Theory book club so I would be interested in hearing your thoughts.

I tend to view Kuhn's

Nebton — Wed, 23 Sep 2009 19:44:36 +0000

In reply to Thanks for elaborating. I

I tend to view Kuhn's theories as a form of punctuated equilibrium (a concept that came out after his work), so that it's merely built on top of Popper's evolutionary framework and is not a challenge to it per se.

Thanks for elaborating. I

DF — Wed, 23 Sep 2009 18:59:25 +0000

In reply to Although the Wikipedia

Thanks for elaborating. I had guessed that this was your intended meaning, but I also figured that you'd be perfectly capable of explaining it. In that case, why guess?

I think the debate between Popper and Kuhn is incredibly fascinating. Popper's principle of falsification is incredibly important (like Kuhn, Popper's thesis has also been misconstrued), but Kuhn's narrative of revolutions is compelling. Or maybe we should say Polanyi's narrative? ;)

Although the Wikipedia

Nebton — Wed, 23 Sep 2009 18:21:00 +0000

In reply to Perhaps you could be more

Although the Wikipedia article only attributes it to Dyson, I'm fairly certain I've seen this from multiple sources. My assertion was not meant to be taken as suggesting that Kuhn didn't really believe what he said he believed. In fact, your interpretation of the context is correct: Kuhn was really interested in distancing himself from those who proclaimed themselves as Kuhnian. There used to be an article on Wikipedia about Kuhnians, which has since been removed for some reason, that explained that these people ran with Kuhn's ideas and became convinced that scientific knowledge is subjective. Some Kuhnians will go so far as to say a witch doctor's practices are no more or less legitimate than "civilized" doctor's practices. I doubt they'd really feel that way if they had a serious illness and were given a choice as to which doctor to go to, though.

Just to be crystal clear: I deeply respect Kuhn. I have little respect for Kuhnians, however.

Perhaps you could be more

DF — Wed, 23 Sep 2009 17:28:57 +0000

In reply to For those of you who love

Perhaps you could be more specific here. The only reference to Kuhn not being a "Kuhnian" was a quote attributed to Freeman Dyson. The context given would seem to imply that Kuhn perhaps didn't agree with the way that his work was interpreted by some, but the literal interpretation of your assertion, which would seem to be that Kuhn didn't really believe what he said he believed, seems questionable to me.

For those of you who love

Nebton — Wed, 23 Sep 2009 13:03:53 +0000

In reply to Kuhn is a really fascinating

For those of you who love Kuhn, I also recommend Tenner's Why Things Bite Back. I found several similarities with The Structure of Scientific Revolutions.

Also, it's worth pointing out that Kuhn was not a Kuhnian.

Kuhn is a really fascinating

DF — Wed, 23 Sep 2009 02:01:16 +0000

In reply to Last summer, I attended a

Kuhn is a really fascinating thinker. The whole debate between Kuhn and Popper is worthy food for thought.

Last summer, I attended a

Michael Wolraich — Wed, 23 Sep 2009 01:23:28 +0000

In reply to I'm with you on his book not

Last summer, I attended a panel discussion on cosmology in which everyone was kinda freaked because there was too much dark matter that couldn't be explained by current theory. It felt to me like the pervasive dissatisfaction preceding a paradigm shift that Thomas Kuhn described in The Structure of Scientific Revolutions--when scientists keep trying to tweak existing theory to account for inconsistent data, and then someone comes along with a much simpler alternative that blows away the old ideas.

Yep. I was. I just wanted to

Orlando — Tue, 22 Sep 2009 21:40:45 +0000

In reply to It almost sounds like O is

Yep. I was. I just wanted to see if anybody was smart enough to follow my brilliance. Good job.

I'm with you on his book not

Nebton — Tue, 22 Sep 2009 19:50:59 +0000

In reply to Frankly, I found Hawking's

I'm with you on his book not being complete enough.

I was lucky enough to hear him "speak" in person at the Atlanta Civic Center. Although I enjoyed it, I also wished he had gone into more detail then. After all, it was the American Physical Society. It's not like he had to treat us the same way he would a lay audience.