Ray Peat A Thomas Kuhn Reader?

[ReSTART]

Thomas Kuhn - Wikipedia

During the period of normal science, the failure of a result to conform to the paradigm is seen not as refuting the paradigm, but as the mistake of the researcher, contra Popper's falsifiability criterion. As anomalous results build up, science reaches a crisis, at which point a new paradigm, which subsumes the old results along with the anomalous results into one framework, is accepted. This is termed revolutionary science.

In SSR, Kuhn also argues that rival paradigms are incommensurable—that is, it is not possible to understand one paradigm through the conceptual framework and terminology of another rival paradigm.

Source: Wikipedia

This falls in line with a few Ray Peat quotes I've read, where he speaks about how current physiological paradigms like receptors and pumps cannot co-exist with the ideas of others like Gilbert Ling's.

 

[Dante]

Receptors exist, not sure about pumps :)

 

[Drareg]

Kuhn seems to have been keen on Poppers work with popper influenced by Heraclitus.
All ties in in some respects,contradiction etc.

 

[nikolabeacon]

I would read this book. Esp. Chapter 5, 9, 10, 13, 15, 17,18, 21

University of Pittsburgh Press Digital Editions

 

[ecstatichamster]

I would read this book. Esp. Chapter 5, 9, 10, 13, 15, 17,18, 21

University of Pittsburgh Press Digital Editions

since we aren't going to read the book, can you summarize the main points that are relevant? Thanks!

 

[x-ray peat]

Thomas Kuhn - Wikipedia
"During the period of normal science, the failure of a result to conform to the paradigm is seen not as refuting the paradigm, but as the mistake of the researcher, contra Popper's falsifiability criterion. As anomalous results build up, science reaches a crisis, at which point a new paradigm, which subsumes the old results along with the anomalous results into one framework, is accepted. This is termed revolutionary science.

In SSR, Kuhn also argues that rival paradigms are incommensurable—that is, it is not possible to understand one paradigm through the conceptual framework and terminology of another rival paradigm."
Source: Wikipedia

Interesting. I think this is how human nature works in all fields and not just science; thesis, antithesis, and then synthesis. I think Ling like Barbara McClintock will eventually be embraced. Unfortunately there are many interests that actively fight the new synthesis for reasons that have little to do with finding the truth. Likewise, there are forces that manipulate the dialectic to force us down roads we would not otherwise choose on our own.