The phenomenon of Kuhn-loss does, in Kuhn’s view, rule out the traditional cumulative picture of progress. The revolutionary search for a replacement paradigm is driven by the failure of the existing paradigm to solve certain important anomalies.
I think one of the reasons Kuhn is interesting to read is he was crossing the boundary between scientific and historical thought, and somehow managed to write a text that almost blended the two. (but failed, ultimately) — Moliere
From theories of gravity, something which I'm more familiar with, I'd say that scientific theories seem to progress in such a way that the older ones are special cases of newer ones.
To illustrate, the calculation of relative velocity involves the use of the Lorentz factor, but at nonrelativistic speeds, it tends to zero and can be ignored completely. — Agent Smith
There is nothing new to be discovered in physics now. All that remains is more and more precise measurement. — Lord Kelvin
Are there useful points of comparison in this between Kuhn and Feyerabend? — Tom Storm
The phenomenon of Kuhn-loss does, in Kuhn’s view, rule out the traditional cumulative picture of progress. The revolutionary search for a replacement paradigm is driven by the failure of the existing paradigm to solve certain important anomalies. — Moliere
Here's a pretty clear case of Kuhn loss, I think. Note that Kuhn-loss doesn't mean that these things are irretrievable -- only that they are lost due to the accidents of history (focusing on cutting edge research, as the author puts it here -- or, in the case of Kuhn, during scientific revolutions). — Moliere
↪Joshs Doesn't boiling point count? Hasok Chang speaks of two ways of speaking about boiling points -- the "Standard Temperature and Pressure" modern sense, and the variable-empirical route from the 18/19th centuries gone over in the paper which includes marking where water begins to boil and when it's a full boil — Moliere
These two ways of speaking about boiling point don’t seem to
present us with the alternative meanings of ‘boiling point’. They are not disputing what it means for water to boil, or what a threshold ‘point’ means , or what water or temperature mean( these basic concepts are the sort that would be in question in a paradigm shift) . — Joshs
I'd say that the equipment involved and the economic model of science at the time and all that goes into the context of discovery would change the meanings of the terms.
I'd say that what the scientists were doing to improve measurements of water boiling point would count as normal science, for sure -- I'm not sure where the loss actually occurred. But what they meant by "water boils
But what they meant by "water boils at 100 degrees C" and what we mean seem different to my eyes. — Moliere
Get involved in philosophical discussions about knowledge, truth, language, consciousness, science, politics, religion, logic and mathematics, art, history, and lots more. No ads, no clutter, and very little agreement — just fascinating conversations.