TED Conversations

This conversation is closed.

Does the scientific establishment unwittingly suffer from paradigm bias? Does it assume incorrect axioms of existence?

In the light of Thomas Kuhn's "Paradigm Shift" theory, and inspired by the TED controversy of removing Rupert Sheldrake's talk, let us examine the current scientific establishment.

The scientific process is capable of historical meta-analysis to make sense of its own patterns and processes. As Kuhn points out, every generation of scientists tend to assume premises that are fundamentally false but define the paradigm in which they work, and all assumptions flow from those premises.

Two major examples to illustrate are the geocentric/religious paradigm overthrown by Copernicus, and the Newtonian absolute space-time paradigm overthrown by Einstein. Of course, we must look to the actual psyche's of the establishment itself in those contexts. Was Copernicus not considered a heretic? Did not pre-Einsteinian physicists literally just ASSUME absolute spacetime as an axiom when contemplating physics? They are only easily shown to be incorrect in 20/20 hindsight, although up to that point, all the textbooks of school and general consensus among very smart 'experts' propagated those fallacious foundations.

Scientists that are overly specialized, careerist, non-philosophical, and lacking in paradigm shattering intuition/creativity might be the 'gatekeepers' of today, propagating fallacious assumptions themselves, and dismissing all non-establishment positions as heretical.

Has science itself transcended all biases? Has it overcome all incorrect assumptions? Was Newtonian absolute spacetime the final barrier? If not, then we MUST give 'heretics' a shot, should we not? What if they are a paradigm shifter?

As a thought experiment- if we are to contemplate the hypothetical that there are indeed wrong assumptions, what might they be?

Could it be that matter emerges from mind, and not the other way around?
Can Cartesian dualism be solved?
Could it be that the paradigm of Empiricism is merely a subset of the superior Rationalism?

Was Leibniz right?


Showing single comment thread. View the full conversation.

  • Apr 8 2013: The concern about how a "paradigm shift" could apply to science seems an interestingly creative and natural response from certain aging and fading societal traditional structures and instituations of civic influence.

    The roots of wisdom and power was largely self ordained in the form of religion including some breakaway academic ideas of philosophy to steer and affect public opinion and shape cultural development in the darker ages of our earlier natural history. The scientific means of inquiry was unrecognized as anything, but an occasionally nice and celebrated means of helping us cope with a hostile physical world. However, within the modern era this relatively simple approach to better understand and harness our physical environment is now spearheading and reshaping world views that were once exclusively the province of the old establish traditional power dreams and schemes of revered dictitorial bluebloods and waterwalkers.

    Just think about it, not too many decades ago the organic world was solely described as biological organisms until a scientific experimenter proclaimed, "I thinks my girlfriend is going to like these nylon stockings!"

    The reason the scientific method or inquiry and testing has been so rearranging in how we (the curious) see things has to do with how it has altered and enlightened our lives. The results of the relatively simple concept behind the scientific method of exploration has been to redirect human cultural development from a passive to a more active state. Implied in this effort to better understand is the ability to discover what is true, or relateable. A remarkably, noteworthy consequence of scientific findings.

    As established and seasoned institutions and traditions sense or experience fading influence should we not expect these kinds of reactions regarding how science legitmently influences or even games the system? Science deserves overview simply because iit can be hyjacked by business enterprises.

Showing single comment thread. View the full conversation.