![]() ![]() Here was an emphasis on observation and its independence from theory. What does the scientist do? He collects objective data and then forms inductive generalizations, according to the early positivists. It was held that all theoretical terms must be translatable into pure observational terms by means of operational definitions. During the 1930’s and 1940’s there was wide acceptance of the positivist contention that science starts from indubitable data which can be described in a neutral observation-language independent of all theories. We shall first look briefly at new views of the relation of theory and observation. We will examine them in turn it will be suggested later that each has significant implications for our understanding of religion. There is thus some evidence of convergence from the former ‘objective’ and ‘subjective’ extremes towards a middle position on each of the three points of disagreement. On the other hand, some of the empiricists have qualified their assertions to take Kuhn’s viewpoint into account. However, in the Postscript to the second edition (1970) of his book and in other recent essays, Kuhn has clarified and in some respects altered his earlier position he now gives greater attention to the control of theory by experiment and the role of criteria independent of particular paradigms. Kuhn, according to his critics, portrayed scientific choice as irrational, subjective, and relative to particular scientific communities. A shift of paradigms during a scientific revolution is not a matter of logical argument but of ‘conversion. Paradigms are therefore ‘incommensurable’. He maintained that observational data and criteria for assessing theories are paradigm-dependent. Kuhn held that the thought and action of a scientific community are dominated by its paradigms, defined as ‘standard examples of scientific work which embody a set of conceptual, methodological and metaphysical assumptions’. The attack on empiricism was carried a step further in Thomas Kuhn’s The Structure of Scientific Revolutions (1962). (3) There are no criteria for choice between rival theories of great generality, for the criteria are themselves theory-dependent. (2) Theories are not verified or falsified when data conflict with an accepted theory, they are usually set to one side as anomalies, or else auxiliary assumptions are modified. (1) All data are theory-laden there is no neutral observation-language. ![]() These ideas came under increasing attack in the late 1950’s and early 1960’s, and three counter-claims were advanced. (3) The choice between rival theories is thus rational, objective, and in accordance with specifiable criteria. ![]() ![]() (2) Theories can then be verified or falsified by comparison with this fixed experimental data. (1) Science starts from publicly observable data which can be described in a pure observation-language independent of any theoretical assumptions. They defended the objectivity of science through three claims. The empiricist accounts of science which were prevalent in the 1950’s emphasized agreement with experiment as the main criterion for judging between rival theories. The scientist is particularly impressed if it explains a variety of types of phenomena and, above all, if it leads to the discovery of novel phenomena not previously anticipated. A theory is valued if it accurately accounts for known observations and yields precise predictions of future measurements. But the most important criterion is the number and variety of supporting experimental observations. The scientist aims at the comprehensive unification of separate laws, the systematic interrelation of theories, the portrayal of underlying similarities in apparently diverse phenomena. Coherence with other accepted theories is also sought. It is not uncommon to hear scientists refer to the beauty or elegance or symmetry of a theory. This includes not only simplicity of mathematical form, conceptual simplicity, and a minimum of independent assumptions, but also an aesthetic element. Simplicity is sought both as a practical advantage and as an intellectual ideal. We must examine this process of assessment in science, and then compare it with the process of assessment in religion in the succeeding chapters.Īmong criteria for assessing scientific theories are simplicity, coherence and agreement with experimental evidence. Scientific models lead to theories which can be tested against observations. We must now carry further our analysis of the structure of science. Myths, Models and Paradigms: A Comparative Study in Science and Religionīy Ian Barbour Chapter 6: Paradigms in Science ![]()
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |