>>I'm not a Kuhn specialist. But let me try to fit your experience in
with his
views as I see them. You ran into an unexpected anomaly with what most
people "know" about e. You tried to resolve it theoretically. That's
all very
Kuhnian, isn't it? When you didn't succeed, you turned to more
interesting
problems. That's Kuhnian too. He said, "Even the most stubborn ones
(problems) usually respond at last to normal practice. Very often
scientists
are willing to wait, particularly if there are many problems available in
other parts of the field" (p. 81).
Where does your experience not fit in with Kuhn?>>
Yes, and no. You make a good point -- so that my example does not (now)
appear as useful as it did when I wrote it. AFAIK, nobody ever did come
up with a theoretical model which described the restitution curves. I did
a little theoretical work; kept coming up with a prediction that the
anomaly DID exist all right -- but at NEGATIVE impact speeds. And this
made no empirical sense.
The real problem with my example is that it is, or at least seems to be,
exceptionally trivial. Had I discovered instances in which gravity, for
instance, did not "behave seemly," I suggest I might have followed up on
the situation with more persistence! < G >
>>As I understand Kuhn, in normal science the highest priority is given
to
preserving the paradigm, if at all possible. That's what you tried to
preserve. That's what Raman was doing in the further example you gave.>>
I'm not sure I quite agree. What paradigm was I "trying to preserve?"
Raman did this, I agree (his apparatus was more primitive than mine and
the effects not as well pronounced, so I can understand why). I published
the work as a thesis, asserting that I'd found an interesting, if
trivial, phenomenon for which no theoretical explanation (at that time)
could be found. One reason I dropped it was that I had graduated and was
going to work with the Navy on "highly important things" (for which they
were going to pay me) involving underwater experiments in mine warfare (I
am not real proud of that part of my life, but it was, thankfully, only a
short time).
>>So he fudged the data a little bit in order to preserve the paradigm.>>
I would not say that. His data was not as clear cut as mine, for many
reasons.
>>I take it the "shape of the e-curve" is not a sufficiently important
problem
in physics for anyone to be upset if the objective data do not confirm
expectations about it. Apparently life goes on apace without resolving
the
anomaly. . Kuhn said, "No paradigm ever completely resolves all its
problems" (p. 79).>>
That seems to be the case.
>>If you wish to pursue this
little matter further, drop me a line.>
I'm not sure the thread is useful to pursue, Bob. I see your point; my
rebuttal is certainly weaker than I had first thought it was. Kuhn's
stuff still bothers me though.
Appreciate the dialog.
BTW -- I see you sent your note to me at another e-mail address. Sorry to
be slow responding to this one -- your original note got here OK. But, in
this case, I had to take some time to think on what you had written. I
like correspondence like that!
Burgy
___________________________________________________________________
You don't need to buy Internet access to use free Internet e-mail.
Get completely free e-mail from Juno at http://www.juno.com/getjuno.html
or call Juno at (800) 654-JUNO [654-5866]