>> [paradigm shifts]
>>
>> Paradigm shifts in science have typically come from a new research
>> program gaining much more momentum than its competitors, and
>> simply sweeping them off the field.
>
>Yes, this is correct. I do not see this as my role, however. I'm
>not a working scientist, but a philosopher of science. As such, I
>take a critical stance toward what is offered to see whether it
>passes logical and methodological muster. (That sounds arrogant,
>as if philosophers set themselves up as arbiters of what's OK and
>what's not. I do not wish to be arrogant, but I do think that
>philosophy has a vital role here, and I think that philosophers -
>- some of them anyway -- have particular training that enables
>them to have special acuity and be of special service in this
>role.)
>
Lloyd,
I believe that current "paradigm" in scientific philosophy (advanced by
Popper) is that theories are advanced and then (if they are potentially
useful) are either accepted as possibly valid or shown to be invalid. The
burden of showing that the assumptions 6,7, & 8 (as you have advanced them)
are incorrect is upon the "philosophers" to _disprove_ -- not the other way
around.
In other words: Theories cannot be proven (as you seem to suggest) but
can only be disproved. (That's why theories can never become facts ---
unless, of course, you were Dawkins or Sagan and could declare evolution to
be a fact.)
Walt
==========================================
Walt Hicks <whicks@ma.ultranet.com>
In any consistent theory, there must
exist true but not provable statements.
(Godel's Theorem)
You can only find the truth with logic
if you have already found the truth
without it. (G.K. Chesterton)
==========================================