Apologists and Thomas Kuhn: A Love Story

[_EAllusion]

Popper also later disavowed his argument about natural selection and testability when biologists pointed out his error to him. Without reading it, I'm willing to bet the ncse article you linked points this out. Early Popper was just flat wrong about that.

[_Franktalk]

With regard to Thomas Kuhn and his paradigm shifts, Mopologists fail to realize that Kuhn was talking about paradigm shifts in science. To believe that paradigm shifts in science will eventually make science compatible with religion is to defy logic.

I normally don't agree with anything you say but here I have to say you are correct. Thomas Kuhn was a scientist and his comments should be bound to science and not taken to include the different spectrum of religious thought. I have used his quotes before and I will use them in the future I am sure. But I frame them in a science context. If I ever said something different than that it would have been a mistake.

But I do believe that Thomas Kuhn's comments can lead to a comparison between religious thought and scientific thought. Although his talk about how paradigm shifts exist in science also applies to religious thought as well. We all as men have our sacred cows. Whether it is our favorite theory of science or our favorite interpretation of scripture. Where science has some ignoring some anomalies to cling to a favorite theory in science, religious people hold to one interpretation of a particular verse in scripture while they ignore other verses which clearly contradict their favorite interpretation of a single verse. This is a favorite practice of man.

[_Franktalk]

Most of the arguments that scientist have with creationist are valid. If a person believes in God in faith yet attempts to declare that faith by proof then they don't understand the separation of faith and evidence. There is no trail of evidence that leads to God. In my mind everything leads to the conclusion that there is a God. Yet no one part or parts of the universe can put together a natural chain of observable things which lead to proof of God Now many suppose that when God can not be found by proof that in itself is somehow proof that He does not exist. Yet in the same breath they declare an undying love for dark matter.

[_Doctor Scratch]

As the B.H. Roberts Chair of Mopologetic Studies, I feel that I need to point out that, within this sub-field of Mopologetics--i.e., Rhetorical (Ab)Uses of the Work of Thomas Kuhn in the Realm of Mopologetics--the following should always be required reading:

viewtopic.php?f=1&t=8289

[_Blixa]

What you got over there is a large group of name droppers who never bother to learn about a Philosopher and why he or she thought as they did, they just need that link or that blurb to make it sound like they’ve done some kind of heavy reading subject to justify their all too casual confidence.

In short....

CAMUS

fixed it for you.

[_Blixa]

...
As for Popper, well, dude was kind of a douche. Sometimes when I’m grumpy and I see his name, I wish Wittgenstein would have clocked him with that iron poker after all. In any case, with Popper, he was always quick off the line with ideas that tried to explain too much. He got turned off to the “grand narrative” approach in coffee shops in Vienna where he heard a lot about Freudian and Marxist views. I imagine he also came up against people who were trying to explain everything about human behavior and society in terms of “survival of the fittest”, and he had his typical knee-jerk reaction against that.

One does not have to agree with Popper's views to concede that his ideas were interesting, relevant to his time, and worthy of serious discussion.

When Mr S. slips into sophomoric mode as in the paragraph above, his ideas on a wide range of subjects suddenly seem less worthy of attention, which is a pity.

Naw, I gotta go with Mr. S on this one, Chap.

[_Jason Bourne]

My post above is already too long, but I couldn't resist adding this response from Wade Englund just because it is such a great example of his nauseating superiority complex:

I would advise being patient with [Kerry Shirts]. The reasonable things you and others are saying are evidently creating tremors in his faith in scientism. And, while he is understandably holding on for dear life to his shaky fundamentalist paradigm, he seems willing to discuss things in such a way that put him at risk for experiencing an edifying paradigm shift. Think of him metaphorically like the black/white folks of Pleasantville who are being exposed for the first time to the concept color. It is bound to be dis-settling to some, and given Kerry's evident youthful style, one may expect some push-back if not also a heavy dose of know-it-all-ism.

Perhaps if we look carefully we may even see a little of own youthful selves in him, and have empathy if not pity. LOL

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

I just cannot help saying this but Wade is such a condescending dick. This is what you get when someone really thinks God is telling them the perfect truth. Argh how sickening this man is.

[_Franktalk]

As the B.H. Roberts Chair of Mopologetic Studies, I feel that I need to point out that, within this sub-field of Mopologetics--i.e., Rhetorical (Ab)Uses of the Work of Thomas Kuhn in the Realm of Mopologetics--the following should always be required reading:

viewtopic.php?f=1&t=8289

I have a problem with the arguments made in that thread. They imply that Thomas Kuhn did not have a valid argument but I would take the position that he did have a valid argument. The problem with what you pointed to is the attitude of absolute correctness. I see that same attitude in this thread. Whereas I openly admit to holes in scriptural discernment I find very little in critical thinking in the science camp. Thomas Kuhn pointed out correctly that many in science will not even consider the possibility that their favorite theory is incomplete. This even in the face of anomalies. I know that anomalies in scripture (other verses which conflict with an understanding) are death to a particular interpretation. Yet when I point out the anomaly in science or even in scripture I get the same response from each group. I get what Kuhn described. What you are trying to do is to make Kuhn's work a point of argument in a debate invalid by saying it is a method of avoiding some form of logic. And indeed some may do that very thing. But I know that what Thomas pointed to is a flaw in human nature where some will ignore any data that disagrees with their position. That is a valid description of the state of man. If Kuhn is used then lay your cards on the table and examine any anomalies. Be honest with your position. Don't divert the argument by arguing over the validity of the philosophy of science. I find Thomas Kuhn very insightful and I see that those who cast him aside also cast aside anomalies that make his point.

[_karl61]

When cold fusion was announced to the world did scientist around the world walk around giving each other high fives or did each one become a doubting Thomas.

[_Cicero]

One does not have to agree with Popper's views to concede that his ideas were interesting, relevant to his time, and worthy of serious discussion.

When Mr S. slips into sophomoric mode as in the paragraph above, his ideas on a wide range of subjects suddenly seem less worthy of attention, which is a pity.

Naw, I gotta go with Mr. S on this one, Chap.

Ditto

I like Popper a lot, and the abused quote does not mean what creationists think it means, but it was still a dumb thing to say.