Kuhn’s Structure of Scientific Revolutions is all about how an old scientific approach is often more right than the new school—fits the data better, at least in the areas widely acknowledged to be central. Only later does the new approach become refined enough to fit the data better.
To him(Kuhn) evidence don’t maintain old paradigms statuos quo, but persuasion. Old fellas making remarks about the virtues of their theory. New folks in academia have to convince a good amount of people to make the new theory relevant.
”...Copernicus’ model needed more cycles and epicycles than existed in the then-current Ptolemaic model, and due to a lack of accuracy in calculations, Copernicus’s model did not appear to provide more accurate predictions than the Ptolemy model. Copernicus’ contemporaries rejected his cosmology, and Kuhn asserts that they were quite right to do so: Copernicus’ cosmology lacked credibility.”
Kuhn’s Structure of Scientific Revolutions is all about how an old scientific approach is often more right than the new school—fits the data better, at least in the areas widely acknowledged to be central. Only later does the new approach become refined enough to fit the data better.
To him(Kuhn) evidence don’t maintain old paradigms statuos quo, but persuasion. Old fellas making remarks about the virtues of their theory. New folks in academia have to convince a good amount of people to make the new theory relevant.
Yes, “Science advances one funeral at a time”, but this, from Wikipedia, is a pretty good summary of a typical “scientific revolution”:
”...Copernicus’ model needed more cycles and epicycles than existed in the then-current Ptolemaic model, and due to a lack of accuracy in calculations, Copernicus’s model did not appear to provide more accurate predictions than the Ptolemy model. Copernicus’ contemporaries rejected his cosmology, and Kuhn asserts that they were quite right to do so: Copernicus’ cosmology lacked credibility.”