Skeptical thinking and rigorous questioning are even more necessary now than in 1995, when Carl Sagan wrote about the need for them in: "A Candle in the Dark: Science in a Demon Haunted World". Most Americans have not been trained to think critically, unlike, say in Finland, where children as young as six years begin to practice it as part of their education to be able to live in a world of disinformation on social media. So America is a paradise for cheats and charlatans, religious cults, and scams of all kinds. That's not new. Mark Twain's rogues, "the King" and "the Duke", in "Huckleberry Finn" and any number of cult leaders have exemplified the type. Yet a majority of Americans still voted twice into the presidency a lifelong cheat and compulsive, congenital liar who is also an ignoramus driven by greed and spite, and a sexual degenerate and predator. They believed his false promises of lowering prices and restoring American greatness by hunting down and deporting immigrants whom he falsely accused (using Hitler's phrase) of "poisoning the blood".
Well, the book is an important one vis-a-vis the philosophy of science (your topic in this post), and demonstrates that science adopts a paradigm and clings stubbornly to it until the weight of evidence that contradicts the paradigm forces original thinkers to bring forth a new paradigm, which can accommodate not only the long-acknowledged facts but the new ones which make the old paradigm untenable. The classic example is Einstein’s thought experiments (eventually confirmed by actual experiments) which led to the replacement of the Newtonian paradigm. [Even Einstein was reluctant to accept the implications of the new thinking he was responsible for! He’s quoted as saying that “God does not play at dice,” and “God is subtle, but he is not malicious.” He kept saying things like that until one day (the story goes) his wife said to him “Alfred, stop telling God what to do!”] All this by way of saying that science progresses not via smooth incremental accretion of knowledge, but by abrupt re-configurations of theory in the face of new facts that “don’t fit.”
Steve - I do agree with you that some prominent individuals cling to their theories for far too long. However, in my opinion, this is a small part of the scientific world. My focus is on understanding cancer - how it arises and how we can substantially reduce cancer deaths. I don't think there are many prominent individuals whose rigidity is holding up progress in a major way.
If you do read Kuhn’s work (it’s quite readable and well-thought-out), I’ll be interested to know if it changes your views at all. Kuhn was talking about science generally; no doubt his generalizations are not expressed identically in all fields.
Skeptical thinking and rigorous questioning are even more necessary now than in 1995, when Carl Sagan wrote about the need for them in: "A Candle in the Dark: Science in a Demon Haunted World". Most Americans have not been trained to think critically, unlike, say in Finland, where children as young as six years begin to practice it as part of their education to be able to live in a world of disinformation on social media. So America is a paradise for cheats and charlatans, religious cults, and scams of all kinds. That's not new. Mark Twain's rogues, "the King" and "the Duke", in "Huckleberry Finn" and any number of cult leaders have exemplified the type. Yet a majority of Americans still voted twice into the presidency a lifelong cheat and compulsive, congenital liar who is also an ignoramus driven by greed and spite, and a sexual degenerate and predator. They believed his false promises of lowering prices and restoring American greatness by hunting down and deporting immigrants whom he falsely accused (using Hitler's phrase) of "poisoning the blood".
Nat, have you read Thomas Kuhn’s book “The Structure of Scientific Revolutions”? I think it’s at odds with some of your expressed views in this piece.
No - what does he disagree with?
Well, the book is an important one vis-a-vis the philosophy of science (your topic in this post), and demonstrates that science adopts a paradigm and clings stubbornly to it until the weight of evidence that contradicts the paradigm forces original thinkers to bring forth a new paradigm, which can accommodate not only the long-acknowledged facts but the new ones which make the old paradigm untenable. The classic example is Einstein’s thought experiments (eventually confirmed by actual experiments) which led to the replacement of the Newtonian paradigm. [Even Einstein was reluctant to accept the implications of the new thinking he was responsible for! He’s quoted as saying that “God does not play at dice,” and “God is subtle, but he is not malicious.” He kept saying things like that until one day (the story goes) his wife said to him “Alfred, stop telling God what to do!”] All this by way of saying that science progresses not via smooth incremental accretion of knowledge, but by abrupt re-configurations of theory in the face of new facts that “don’t fit.”
Steve - I do agree with you that some prominent individuals cling to their theories for far too long. However, in my opinion, this is a small part of the scientific world. My focus is on understanding cancer - how it arises and how we can substantially reduce cancer deaths. I don't think there are many prominent individuals whose rigidity is holding up progress in a major way.
If you do read Kuhn’s work (it’s quite readable and well-thought-out), I’ll be interested to know if it changes your views at all. Kuhn was talking about science generally; no doubt his generalizations are not expressed identically in all fields.