Chapter 2.3: Thomas Kuhn, incommensurability and progress

For more videos on Philosophy by Victor Gijsbers go to:

[otiebrown]

Excellent, and well stated!
People in the "first Paradigm", absolutely can not understand, or even tollerate even a discussion of the, "second Paradigm".
I learned that the hard way, when writing a book about the Dynamic Behavior of all fundamental eyes, from birth.

[Qugyuk]

it has a yuge impact 0:44

great videos, best series on Kuhn and paradigm shifts that I have found so far. Much easier to get people to watch YouTube videos than read books!

[SInteract]

Great video series, but my reading of Kuhn here is a little different. The progress that happens during the normal science phase isn't lost during during a scientific revolution. The paradigm shifts and there is a new normal science, but the puzzle solving during the previous paradigm produced facts that aren't lost. Progress that was made in that previous paradigm remains. Some facts may be proven to have a different explanation in the new paradigm, but not necessarily.

[stannisbaratheon]

When jesus comes back from the grave to give you some sweet ass videos!

[molotovmafia]

As a subjectivist who studies social sciences, i really agree with kuhn!

[davidmoore]

I like how he ends on a incommensurability 😁

[justmarja]

Really helpful, i'm amazed. Great videos, full of needed content.

[DarkMoonDroid]

About the only thing I think can be said while we're in-between Paradigms is that there are more than one Paradigms active right now.

But that's not an unimportant thing to say!
I actually think it's one of the most important things that can be said about it!
Without judging any of them, we can count them and compare them. Sure, we can list pros and cons, but that's not even as useful as just listing their qualities.

I've found that "Explanatory Power" is a thing.
When a new idea has more EP than what the current Paradigm can offer, an opinion gap forms in the general population and fills with tension. Such tension can only build so far before it becomes destructive.
Then something's got to give.

[maxhills]

You can't compare paradigms? But, crisis stage develops when paradigms cannot find a solution? And the new paradigm, after the scientific revolution can find that solution? How does incommensurability fit with crisis and revolution? If you can't compare paradigms by any objective metric, why aren't there still scientists working in the Aristotelian paradigm? Why do crises occur? Why do revolutions occur? Why do we generally adopt the new paradigm? For fun? For subjective reasons?

[BurnigLegionsBlade]

But there is a fairly neutral standard, which is the practical effects in the real world of using said paradigm. Say in medicine, one paradigm is better at improving human health than the other. Plus the paradigm shift takes place when a new idea appears and it is compared with the old ones. Therefore we could tell that it is still progress as the paradigm changes taking into account the existence of previous ones

[brendankatzke]

So incisive and articulate. Capital my Dutch brother, Capital!

[osmandeen]

Excellent explanation. Thank you for covering the topic.

[pritheshcrasta]

Thanks for the explanation. God bless :)

[Surokkh]

Great job man, these videos on Kuhn are excellent, they really helped.
One thing I would like to put in here though, is when talking about progress, Kuhn of course wasn't referring to our standard concept of progress as we know it (i.e. Popper's accumulative view), but when talking about "progress" we should rather think simply: "change". This agrees with the incommensurability of paradigms, as they can not be objectively compared - by the same standards - because they abide by different rules.
However, this *would* mean that change, aka *progress*, does in fact happen even during scientific revolutions, because there is a _change_ of paradigm (the shift). Demonstrations of these changes can be seen in discarding old textbooks, articles, claims etc. that support and propagate the old paradigm.
Am I wrong on this? I would really like critique on my understanding here.

[GoodNewsForStrangers]

Awesome, I don't agree with Kuhn, however. I do believe that there can be commensurability between different paradigms of science when measuring the scientific progress within a particular field such as medicine or physics

[camilojazzfernandes]

hahaha ... engaging soliloquy ... reminds me of another magnetic genius who goes by the moniker 'theories apollonius' ... incommensurability ... that is what i feel connects in a certain way ... and keep up the great work ... hahaha

[studiouspanda]

Basically scientific progress to Kuhn is relative to how scientific progress is defined under the paradigm of the time?

[robsmitleiden]

Early 20th century the paradigm on Newton was replaced by the paradigm of Einstein. But Einstein's relativity theory didn't make Newton's laws obsolete. At lower speeds, Newton still rules. But at speeds approaching light speed, Einstein rules. Einstein's theory includes Newton's theory. So because Einstein explains the world better than Newton, Einstein's theory seems to be objectively better than Newton's. Doesn't this mean you can have a revolution (Newton replaced by Einstein), while still the new paradigm is objectively better than the old one?

[jingdanliu]

how about math? The example of Euclidean Geometry and Non-Euclidean Geometry? And the example of Cantor and Kronecker?

[galegordan]

It seems something wrong is here. There is a way to say something is better. That is the answer to notices anomalies. The reason why the old paradigm actually was changed with new paradigm