7. Christopher Otter

In the lecture given by Christopher Otter, he discusses how those of the scientific revolution who often worshiped Isaac Newton and used science as a tool to remove superstition. During the time of Thomas Kuhn, he discusses paradigm shifts and how they are revealed through experiments. However, there will always be anomalies to these rules that will break the paradigm. Eventually, one paradigm will fade away and another will take its place.

I found Otter’s explanation of Kuhn’s work insightful. Kuhn’s work is very dry, like Otter mentioned, and difficult to really understand at a superficial level. I like to think that like his work, his thoughts and ways of communicating them are at a deeper level of complexity. I liked his mention of where the word “scientist” came from because it just seems interesting that we have all these new ideas with that replaced previous ones but we have no recollection of the making of common words we use everyday. I am a little off-stricken by the fact that some people can invest their entire lively-hoods for a mere fraction of a billionth of a step to possibly progress a paradigm. I like to think that the paradigms are slowly adding building blocks and progressing on their individual developments but the honest truth (no pun intended) is that we will never solve the entire paradigm or even discover all the potential ones. Its like running as fast and far as you can but only ever moving in place or like a puzzle with every piece missing but one. It seems pointless to me to venture on a path like this because so many people will want to disprove your work or are so narrow-minded on their own beliefs that any progress would barely have an impact. Although it is interesting how far we have come, with conflicting debates on what is justified as a “truth”, some mysterious must be accepted as a mystery and that is what I believe to be another paradigm truth. Acceptance of the unknown.

Dr. Otter talked to us about how some people worshiped the enlightenment period, while some people were worried that science would cause great destruction. For example, the famous novel “Frankenstein” was a way to convince people that science can go wrong.  Dr. Otter talked to us about all these different scientific texts throughout the centuries; this book is what lead up to Kuhn’s book.  One book that stood out was “Genesis and Development of a scientific Fact” by Ludwik Fleck. Fleck wrote this book in  1935, Thomas Kuhn wrote the forward to this book. He worked as a medical doctor and researched Syphilis. Since Ludwig was Jewish, he was imprisoned in a concentration camp. It’s awful to think about how so many Jewish scientists were imprisoned and killed just because of their religion. —-

“The Structure of Scientific Revolutions” was explained to us; Dr. Otter told us that this book is cited a lot in modern day science. He asked what we thought was a paradigm shift, and we agreed that it a set of scientific thoughts. Kuhn talks about a number of examples of paradigms such as heliocentric cosmos, plate tectonics, the evolution of natural selection, and much more! I thought it was crazy how some people went extreme measures to prove that their paradigm was correct, such as the guy who thought HIV doesn’t cause AIDS and injected himself with HIV.

Normal Science is the “everyday work” of scientist but according to Kuhn, it was an anomaly. Anomalies are facts that don’t fit into established paradigms. They tend to throw existing paradigms into doubt. Some examples of anomalies are Bigfoot, UFOs, and fossils. When an accumulation of anomalies gather they tend to lead to the abandonment of the old paradigm and replace it with a new one. An example is during the 19th century and the discovery of fossils. The discovery of fossils leads to the paradigm shift that these giants lived long ago. Some people can’t accept the paradigm shift, causing a  never-ending battle between the old paradigm and a new paradigm. Kuhn argued that the paradigm is not perfect. People Scientists don’t just follow paradigms because they believe its true. They are emotional, socially, and financially connected to them. Kuhn also said the paradigms are incommensurable. You cannot believe two at the same time! When a paradigm dies, the world view of it dies too.

 

 

I think that this was a nice and informative presentation to help provide more insight on the aspects of the paradigm shift spinned in Kuhn’s book. I really like conceptual thinking so I think the history of past paradigm shifts and the discussion of how they disrupt other paradigms is very interesting because it corresponds to human nature a little bit. I also liked how we talked about what makes a fact a fact and that they are really just social constructs not truth. I also liked how we talked about the idea of anomalies and how they have to fit into the established paradigm or the vast majority won’t believe the theory.

Dr. Otter began his presentation on the interpretation of the history of science by setting up the context in which Thomas Kuhn wrote, “The Structure of Scientific Revolutions”. By emphasizing the shape of history, we can see how history lead to the modern world of scientific thinking. Science was used as a weapon to fight superstition during the Enlightenment, and in the 19th century science was popularized through university, where the science was equated to progress. The 20th century saw lots of texts that argued the scientific revolution was the most important thing to happen in history, one even comparing it to the coming of Christ. The Scientific Revolution can be simplified to the point in which society became dynamic; science became distinguished from pseudoscience; and error distinguished from truth.

I really enjoyed the discussion on limitations of the definition of fact. While we have been trained to accept facts as truth, there is the suggestion that facts are actually an agreement to stop exploring an idea. This implies that society can open any truth and destroy it, since facts are socially produced. An example of this is climate change. American society has just chosen not to accept climate change as a fact yet.

The basis of Kuhn’s work is the idea that science cannot function without paradigms, a set of collective ideas that scientists agree on. Normal science is performing experiments that maintain the current paradigm, sometimes producing evidence that does not fit. While these anomalies are usually ignored or labeled as pseudoscience, an accumulation of anomalies throws existing paradigms into doubt. Paradigm shifts occur when there are enough anomalies to replace an old paradigm, but the shift temporarily splits science into two- those holding on to the older paradigm, and those in favor of the new one. Kuhn notes that during these splits, the answer cannot be found in the natural world because people are seeing the same thing through different lenses. Dr. Otter described the feeling of arguing a new paradigm to those who refuse to see anything but the old way as incommensurable. I liked Dr. Otter’s observation that people who initiate paradigm shifts tend to be young and on the outside, or those who are less consumed with the traditional perspective.

Kuhn disagreed with early historians of science who attempted to linearize science. He concludes that truths just become replaced by other truths which better explain anomalies. New paradigms do not have to explain everything; they just needs to explain more than the prior paradigm. Overall, I was surprised by how much I enjoyed this presentation, and I liked how Dr. Otter mentioned that there is more than truth to paradigms. People are emotionally, socially, and financially connected to them.

Dr. Otter came in and started talking about the scientific revolution. He even discussed how Shelley’s Frankenstein was written to criticize science, which is interesting because I have read that book before and wondered why and how it came about. He talked about science and how it is progress. He pretty much discussed how science progressed through history. He discussed several books to get to the point of why kuhn wrote about what he wrote. Fact is when we have agreed to stop probing at something and just accept it. I thought this talk was very interesting because he talked about Kuhn which is the book we are reading in class. This was helpful to hear about because it made the book make just a little more sense because it is very difficult to understand this book. He explained paradigm as sort of a set of thoughts, beliefs, experiments, etc. which form established consensus of a given field at a given time. Not gonna lie I didn’t really understand fully what exactly the simple definition of paradigm was until right now. These are things that pretty much everyone agrees on. He then began to discuss some of the paradigms that Kuhn discusses. He explained normal science in terms of Kuhn, which was experiments that don’t change the paradigm.He explained anomaly as something that doesn’t fit the normal paradigm, we usually label these as pseudoscience. Eventually accumulated anomalies lead to a shift of a paradigm, abandonment of an old one changed to a new one. He concluded with the argument of what Kuhn says which is that history is nonlinear and it is a series of calm and then periods of rupture (paradigm shift).

I found this presentation to be quite beneficial, particularly for approaching the readings for this class.  Since Kuhn is not a simple read, a greater comprehension of the history of science will likely improve the reading process moving forward.  I liked Dr. Otter’s comment that “you cannot be ahead of your time.”  I agree with this idea that the phrase, “ahead of your time” is a bit overstated since in order to be where they are they must be of their time and have had the upbringing and education that they did, shaping them into accomplished individuals.

As an individual that enjoys history from the last few hundred years, I find the topic of scientific revolutions to be quite interesting.  The comment that “ideas make history” is intriguing since what we are taught in classrooms all stem from major ideas that shaped the modern way of thinking.  Often times, I gravitate towards questioning whether what I am taught in a historical sense is accurate.  As I have stated in previous commentaries, we view everything with a modern lens and will never truly understand certain events or time periods, so pictures become fuzzy.  Yet, this picture is also complicated by societal consensus.  It is interesting that something that is “fact” can be entirely rejected by a society and disregarded.  Moreover, I think it is important to realize that science is highly political, constantly being shaped by money and institutions.

When Dr. Otter spoke of the way in which we are a part of paradigm shift culture, I was surprised by the accuracy of what he said.  I particularly related to his comment that we always trust the textbook and the experiment and never assume a variant result disproves the experiment.  But more importantly, his commentary on the trauma of paradigm shifts was my favorite part of the presentation.  I had yet to spend a great deal of time reflecting on the impact that paradigm shifts can have on overthrown viewpoints, even leading to traumatic suicides as in the example he provided.  People become so invested in what they believe to be true, that rejection can be detrimental.  I bet that if there was stark evidence disproving my core beliefs, I would be devastated and not know what to do with myself.  Yet, as a closing thought, I found Dr. Otter’s statement that an argument can be made for the end of the age of paradigm shifts to be an engaging concept.  I will likely spend time reflecting on the complications of modern day science and how that may inhibit some paradigms.

First of all – love the accent.  Kinda getting me excited to be in London where accents are common.

Science is very important for the modern age (according to the people in charge of science).  Science is viewed as progress.  Basically people think the scientific revolution is a big deal.  It moved Europe from being static to dynamic.  Also saying bye to pseudoscience (astrology, alchemy, witches).

“Jesus Christ, and Issac Newton, and nothing else matters.”

Shelley’s Frankenstein among others attacks science.  This is also lowkey happening today, just more as entertainment.  See the Netflix series Black Mirror for an example.

A fact is where we’ve collectively decided to stop pondering at something.  Society, if it wants, can decide to just open up any truth and destroy it.  Science is a good way to find new facts

This dude is a bigg climate change guy.  On that – people continue to deny the fact of climate change, but as Dr. Otter says, it will continue to become more obvious.  I’m just worried that by the time people accept it, it’ll be too late (it just might already be too late).

Book to read – the textbook for this class (oops)

let’s define some stuff here:

paradigm – set of beliefs held by society. a collective thought. established consensus of scientific facts. it’s what the textbooks are full of, the stuff your teachers tell you.  We need to have paradigms in order to move forward.  They’re like building blocks.

*Side note: I often find myself wondering how people don’t believe in scientific data and deny paradigms.  For example, flat-earthers.  There’s so much evidence but they find a way around every little piece.

Anomalies – facts that don’t fit with the current paradigms.  Examples: retrograde motion, x-rays, fossils, UFO’s.  The accumulation of anomalies eventually leads to the abandonment of an old paradigm and replaces it with a new one.  I’m interested in how the timeline works for a paradigm shift.  Somewhere between the old paradigm and the new one, someone has to discover/create the new one.  Is there a set number of anomalies that gets the shift in motion?

Shockingly, young people are more accepting of change and new science.  You can’t prove anything just by saying “go observe nature” because people have their own lenses through which they see the world.  It’s usually a young outsider that initiates the shift.

“History of science not a linear journey to ‘the truth,’ but rather a discontinuous process whereby one truth is replaced by another.”

Everything in science is ‘true’ until proven false (notice how science differs from the court system).  Paradigms aren’t even true.  They’re just the closest option to the truth that we have.  We’re connected to paradigms emotionally, socially, and financially.  No one wants to give you money to work on something that’s generally not accepted.  Also, paradigms are super expensive to change – all the old equipment would suddenly become irrelevant.

Big Point: Scientific truth is nonlinear.  We can never actually get to the whole truth (kinda sad) (and very humbling).

Dr. Otter led into his discussion about Kuhn by defining a few of the predominant terms in Kuhn’s book. A paradigm is the set of facts and/or beliefs that are accepted in society; it makes up what is written in textbooks and taught in courses. Dr. Otter gave examples of paradigms Kuhn discusses, such as the phlogiston theory of combustion, the big bang theory, plate tectonics, and the periodic table/law of elements. Normal science is the everyday work of scientists using the established paradigms. There is no paradigm that can accurately explain everything; the things that cannot be explained by paradigms are known as anomalies. Rather than disregarding a paradigm, anomalies are often ignored; accumulated anomalies, however, eventually lead to the abandonment of the previously establish paradigm, and a paradigm shift occurs. During a paradigm shift, society splits into two: those who accept the new view of the world, and those who continue to accept the previous views of the world. Dr. Otter mentioned that those who are typically unaccepting of new ideas are in an older generation. I found this interesting because Dr. Otter connected this with how it is easier, on a neurological basis, for younger people to accept new ideas and information.

Dr. Otter explained that Kuhn’s book implies that the pathway to truth in science is not linear, but rather it’s a discontinuous process in which one truth replaces another. In addition, according to Kuhn, each paradigm is like a lens that produces a different view on the same world.

The speaker Christopher Otter discussed the concept of Kuhn where theories are attempted to be salvaged until another theory comes along. Specifically in regard to the theory that the earth is not the center of the universe. The development of mathematical rules allows strict rules to be followed.