Science and politics

No.12617076 ViewReplyOriginalReport
Scientific paradigm shift is a rather accurate and popular notion of how the scientific method actually proceeds through different modes of resistance.A paradigm for a given situation can be defined as mutually exclusive statements that,in conjunction with each other,form the unified effect of the system.Scientific paradigm for a given time dictates the proceeding of many academic factors,which include:
1)what are the appropriate questions one can ask according to what answers he can receive for that particular question.
2)what experiments can one feasibly conduct to support one's hypothesis.
3)what is the appropriate amount of extrapolation in ambiguous data sets.
4)what is the appropriate degree of accuracy one requires for a certain hypothesis to be considered correct.
5)the appropriate time for new theories and hypothesis to emerge.
Of course,these aren't the only factors which are affected by paradigm,but I'd say that they are the basic generators of other composite factors.An example of this phenomenon is lord kelvin's famous statement:"physics is complete".Well,it wasn't true because Einstein's theory of relativity and the advent of quantum mechanics in the 20th century shattered any hopes for the academic "completion" of physics.The point is that the notions of classical physics accurately depicted a model of reality on which academic consensus was built upon and anyone who rejected these notions would've been dealt with harshly by the elite in the field of physics at that time.It was the paradigm of physics at that time.What I'm trying to say is that the paradigms of that time didn't affect the eventual overturning of the status quo,and those academic revolutions were linked with political revolutions at the global stage.This whole cycle of cause and effect in terms of the holistic scheme of affairs just proves that scientific statements are just meant to model reality.That's why I hate scientific absolutism.