Well I'd respond by saying that the cause of ulcers is NOT a paradigm shift... the GERM THEORY OF DISEASE is a paradigm shift. The move from Newtonian Phsyics to Einsteinian Physics is a paradigm shift... The cause of ulcers is what Kuhn would call "normal" science. We assume that something, not bad air or or evil spirits cause ulcers. The ulcer debate is WITHIN an accepted paradigm. Most science is that sort of science. -----Original Message----- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Tuesday, February 26, 2002 9:05 AM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Paradigm shifts
Pinczewski-Lee, Joe (LRC) writes: > There has been soomething of a misunderstanding regarding paradigm shift, > the paradigm "shifts" not whent he old practioners ae all dead, that CAN > happen, but when an influential majority/plurality accepts the new paradigm. > The old paradigm still exists, in some cases they old paradigm's practioners > are simply "exiled" from science. Their worldview is simply NOT accepted as > science. So, change need not occur at a glacial pace. Note, one example I used was Priestley. He was eventually won over to Lavoisier's oxygen hypothesis. He was not exiled or even self-exiled from the community of chemists. My point was that key players often do change to the new paradigm -- i.e., that the whole model of some people holding on tooth and claw to outmoded ideas is an overgeneralization and might not be supported by a thorough study. Even if I mean what Joe states above, this kind of disproves the model that theory change happens only in neophytes. In any field, most of the people who change their views are people who are already established in that field. Granted, there are cases where an outsider comes and does the changes. The H. pylori is one such instance, but it kind of proves my point. The researchers were not gasterenterologists, but they managed to persuades, according to Thagard's book, over 90% of gasterenterologists that bacterial infection is a major cause of ulcers. This doesn't seem to fit the Joe's model. The less than 10% who disagree with the H. pylori hypothesis are probably not marginalized or exiled outside of modern medicine. The fact, however, that 90% accept the case seems to show the willingness of experts to change their opinions. Since this happened in less than 20 years, I doubt this is because the old timers clung to the old view -- ulcers are caused by stomach acid alone and the best treatment is antiacids -- while only newcomers embraced the new view -- H. pylori causes many ulcers and the best treatment for these are antibiotics. This doesn't mean that paradigm shifts don't happen in the way Joe means. I just think they are a lot less numerous and that the model is overused, especially to explain [away] changes in complex fields. It's easy to overlook the details in many cases, such as the change from the phlogiston to oxygen hypotheses and the current models of the stomach ulcers. Cheers! Daniel Ust http://uweb.superlink.net/neptune/
