DiscussMormonism.com

The problem here is not so much that the apologist has completely misread Kuhn, but is opportunistic with respect to Kuhn.

Kuhn's discussion of incommensurability is the main reason why his view of science is often referred to as "relativist." Kuhn's book is often considered one of the first major steps in a tradition of work in the second half of the twentieth century that embraced relativism about science and knowledge. Kuhn himself was shocked to be interpreted this way.

-- Godfrey Smith, p. 94

The most obvious way to become an opportunist of Kuhn's work is the exciting possibilities that open up for those who know they're in a tight spot, who know they're arguing for something completely stupid, like the Book of Mormon or the Book of Abraham being real, ancient documents that no sane person who hasn't already been indoctrinated with Mormonism could ever take seriously. Kuhn then becomes an "escape hatch." If you can't beat your oponent on the grounds of evidence, then throw out a reference to Kuhn, and shoot for a stalemate. If Mormons are working within a "rival paradigm", then the standards of the rest of the academic world do not apply to them. Further, there is always hope that science will one day undergo a revolution and vindicate Mormon scripture.

Two examples:

John Gee wrote:But beyond fallacies of negative proof, Latter-day Saints have, for good reasons, never felt bound by certain currently accepted results of Egyptology...Egyptology has only recently begun to feel the impact of Thomas Kuhn's work on the hard sciences.

-- Abracadabra...

Kevin Christensen wrote:The notion of proof only makes sense within a given paradigm. In comparing paradigms, we confront the limits of verification and falsification.

-- Paradigms Crossed

Egyptology might one day have a revolution that plugs all the holes in the current mopologist Book of Abraham theories which are currently, doomed to sink. Or, if we can put the critics within another paradigm, then their blows immediately lose all force since by default, Mormonism becomes inpenatrable to criticism as two paradigms have no common ground whereby one could ever be right and the other wrong.

You're absolutely right, Gad. Kuhn's book is actually a backhanded defense of science. He certainly combats the notion of "pure" science by emphasizing that scientists are fallible, social creatures and that the success of a paradigm in the academy sometimes owes as much to politics as to its own merits. Nevertheless, Kuhn clearly believes that in the long run science works.

Yes, CK, in fact Kuhn -- ironically for those who scrape the relativistic cream off the top of the milk only -- protects science from the opportunistic apologists. Science as rigid social institution,

Kuhn certainly claims that normal science does close off debates about fundamentals...Popper said that although "normal science" of Kuhn's kind does occur, it is a bad thing that it does.

- 81

Popper and his devoted followers very much prized the "free enterprise" nature of science where anyone at anytime can send the whole institution down the river. Richard Feynman, famously, took up this cross. Recall, that the philosophy of science up to the point of Feyerabend and Kuhn had been interested in throwing all religious dogmatism and abuse of authority overboard, to make sure that a Gallileo is never again silenced by the priesthood. But Kuhn's insight, that science does, in a certain way, rather dogmatically seal off the debate of "fundamentals" and essentially, indoctrinate students, is important and the practicality here should be obvious. Clearly, the acadamy can't take every radical idea out there seirously. Between Mormon apologists and free-energy theorists, and the millions of other nutcases out there, how could science be so flexible that it's ready to take every novel idea seriously so that for every 1 million cranks out there, it doesn't throw out the one Mendel?

So the fact that Book of Mormon geography is ignored by universities everywhere speaks to Kuhn's insight that normal science works within the paradigm, and is not open-minded enough to take angels and gold plates seriously. This is the justification to ignore apologists outright.

If Mormons are working within a "rival paradigm", then the standards of the rest of the academic world do not apply to them. Further, there is always hope that science will one day undergo a revolution and vindicate Mormon scripture.

Sure, but standards change and I think that is Christensen's point. Gee is an idiot. How many different philosophies of science must we go through before realizing that standards of science changes? ID was rejected in the courts based on Karl Popper's philosophy of falsification. Does that mean ID would have been considered true 50 years ago?

Truth doesn't change, but our standards for determining truth do change. Mormons want more change becuse they don't like the current philosophy.

Nevertheless, Kuhn clearly believes that in the long run science works.

Well, yeah, but not without undergoing several paradignm shifts. Much of science is determined because of political factors. Kuhn's "normal science" is determined by whatever paradigm happens to be accepted by the current scientific community (politics). When normal science hits a brick wall, and anomalies occur that cannot be explained, then at this point a different paradigm of science kicks in. According to Kuhn, the old paradigm is dispensed with because it is incapable of answering the problems it created.

I think what the apologists are getting at, is that since the Book of Abraham presents so many anomalies that cannot be explained by "normal science," a new paradign is required. And even Kuhn agreed that this new paradigm will involved many failed explanations. So they can start shooting in the dark with wild theoreticals till their heart's content, while the critics arguing from the old "normal science" paradigm are just howling at the moon.

Their real problem is that there are no anomalies or problems with normal science explaining the Book of Abraham. So they invent them so they can invoke Kuhn.

dartagnan wrote:Well, yeah, but not without undergoing several paradignm shifts. Much of science is determined because of political factors. Kuhn's "normal science" is determined by whatever paradigm happens to be accepted by the current scientific community (politics). When normal science hits a brick wall, and anomalies occur that cannot be explained, then at this point a different paradigm of science kicks in. According to Kuhn, the old paradigm is dispensed with because it is incapable of answering the problems it created.

What are the current brick walls that science is hitting? Are there any rumblings going on that would herald a paradigm shift?

Their real problem is that there are no anomalies or problems with normal science explaining the Book of Abraham. So they invent them so they can invoke Kuhn.

The simpliest explanation prevails.

What are the current brick walls that science is hitting? Are there any rumblings going on that would herald a paradigm shift?

Depends on the scientific theory.

Richard Dawkins does this all the time. He can't use modern scientific methods to explain religion within the paradigm of materialism, so he comes up with his universal darwinism paradigm and then even that fails because he can't seem to get his premises correct with respect to religious elements he plugs into his theory.

Truth doesn't change, but our standards for determining truth do change. Mormons want more change becuse they don't like the current philosophy.

You can believe that, most people do, but Kuhn seemed to argue that truth did change.

When normal science hits a brick wall, and anomalies occur that cannot be explained, then at this point a different paradigm of science kicks in.

It's not quite like that for Kuhn. Anomalies are a part of normal science. Because there is an anomaly, doesn't mean science has hit a brick wall. A different paradigm MAY arise if these anomalies built up, but there is no guarantee that the paradigm will "shift" vs. the old model will work things out. And there is no way to say the new paradigm is more true or even "better" than the old one.

This is an important point because see, anthropology and archeology as currently practiced would have a scientific "paradigm", and it doesn't seem that anything related to the Book of Mormon or Smith has presented even the slightest anomaly to this paradigm nor even an worthwhile "puzzle" for archeologists to solve. There is nothing, at all, coming from Mormonism, that in fact could provide the stimulus for a new paradigm within acadamia to arise.

What are the current brick walls that science is hitting? Are there any rumblings going on that would herald a paradigm shift?

Well, if one buys into paradigms, which I don't, then maybe some unexpected experimental results at the LHC would change physics dramatically. The most famous example of an anomaly that science can't resolve is the conflict between general relativity and quantum mechanics.

Gadianton wrote:

What are the current brick walls that science is hitting? Are there any rumblings going on that would herald a paradigm shift?

Well, if one buys into paradigms, which I don't, then maybe some unexpected experimental results at the LHC would change physics dramatically. The most famous example of an anomaly that science can't resolve is the conflict between general relativity and quantum mechanics.

That whooshing sound you hear is the sound of physics/general relativity/quantum mechanics going right over my head.

Thanks, I think.

Gadianton wrote:It's not quite like that for Kuhn. Anomalies are a part of normal science. Because there is an anomaly, doesn't mean science has hit a brick wall. A different paradigm MAY arise if these anomalies built up, but there is no guarantee that the paradigm will "shift" vs. the old model will work things out.

Yes, I agree.

And there is no way to say the new paradigm is more true or even "better" than the old one.

Mostly. This is where Kuhn got in trouble being accused of being a relativist, etc. "True" then would be defined by the paradigm, the expectations, fruitfulness (what problems it solves, etc.) rather than as a Platonic foundation of Ideal.

This is an important point because see, anthropology and archeology as currently practiced would have a scientific "paradigm", and it doesn't seem that anything related to the Book of Mormon or Smith has presented even the slightest anomaly to this paradigm nor even an worthwhile "puzzle" for archeologists to solve. There is nothing, at all, coming from Mormonism, that in fact could provide the stimulus for a new paradigm within acadamia to arise.

Not from within your paradigm, it would seem. ;)

Additionally, you want the Book of Mormon to present an "anomaly" for current archeology and anthropology to face up to it seems. But here you are applying Kuhn to the more tenuous fields of archeology and anthropology as opposed to physics or chemistry. This is a problem in that Kuhn referred to neither field in his entire book. The problems of those fields were not approached by Kuhn. The subjectivity and best guessing involved in science was underscored for certain scientific views, but especially in terms of anthropology, for example, we get all sorts of new problems to deal with that Kuhn only mentioned in passing. Here I believe you are misusing Kuhn, interestingly enough, to abuse Mormonism from your apologetic viewpoint.

Finally, there are, contra your assertions, anthropologists and archeologists who don't believe anthropology or archeology "disprove" the Book of Mormon. But again, we are already afield from Kuhn, and interestingly, it is you who is misusing Kuhn.

But maybe I have to say you aren't misusing Kuhn; you can't be "misusing" because you don't "buy" the paradigm idea. So you are misunderstanding, in my view, how apologists understand or apply the premises of Kuhn.

It appears I am arguing on two fronts, then. That Kuhn's ideas are fruitful and also that Christensen has not misused Kuhn in his writings on Mormonism. It's no "escape hatch," it's a way to understand how anomalies can exist despite their problems, even in science. "Shelving" is not simply a way to avoid confronting reality in Kuhn's view. It can be, but it isn't by necessity, for example.

I can see many useful ways Kuhn can be employed to help understand how people can understand the world differently but not lose faith in the "world." Kevin Graham, for example, lost his faith in Mormonism but this paradigm shift was not enough to make him lose faith in God.

But paradigm shifts need not be so dramatic as Graham's. Switching from a hemispheric to limited geography for the Book of Mormon can affect how one deals with the text, with prophets, etc. overall, all without abandoning Mormonism. It has to do with how people deal with the data.

The more I think about it the more impressed I am with Christensen's reading of Barbour and Kuhn. If you think Kuhn is a mere "escape hatch" for an "apologist," I think you're welcome to that paradigm. I don't find it more fruitful than how I currently see it. ;)