MC Philosophy: Kuhn: Values and Algorithms

This is the third and last entry on Kuhn, the first is Thomas Kuhn: Objectivity, Value Judgment and Theory Choice, the second is Kuhn: Justification of Scientific Theory.

-In previous entries, we covered the Paradigm Shifts that Kuhn believes drive scientific discovery and the manner in which he believes they are decided upon. Kuhn states that it is not strictly correctness or truthfulness that make one theory better than another, but rather that there are many criterion for each scientist to ponder when deciding where to lay their belief. Furthermore, each scientist may view data in different lights depending on their belief system. Here, we will expound upon the reasons there are not strict logical choices that each scientist should make and how their values affect them.

Definitions:

Algorithm - a procedure to solve a problem, especially an established, recursive computational procedure for solving a problem in a finite number of steps (American Heritage)

Time - will be used in the Heideggerian sense. That is, the whole of the events that affect their current atmosphere and person - or the environment and situation in which some person finds him/herself.

Subjectivity - will be used as a defendable judgment on the part of a scientist as opposed to an indefensible 'taste'. So a 'subjective' choice is not just made on a whim like, 'I like ice cream', but rather an educated and defensible position that is still not objectively discernible.

-To start, we are going to take a step back and address why there can be no absolute deciding logic that a scientist must follow in order to choose between competing theories.

So let's think about the material brain and its capabilities. We can assume that the brain has certain determined activities that allow specific functions, without subjectivity ie. breathing, heart pumping, digestion. Let's say that these are all controlled by algorithms established in the brain - there is a definitive procedure for breathing that your brain follows and thus accomplishes its task.

Could there be a similar algorithm for dictating rational, unanimous choice? So if we assume that the problems of differing criteria (talked about in the last entry) were not pertinent - if accuracy was the only necessity for choosing a theory, is there an algorithm for deciding on the rationally accurate choice?

"The search for algorithmic decision procedures has continued for some time and produced both powerful and illuminating results. But those results all presuppose that individual criteria of choice can be unambiguously stated and also that, if more than one proves relevant, an appropriate weight function is at hand for their joint application. Unfortunately, where the choice at issue is between scientific theories, little progress has been made toward the first of these desiderata and none toward the second...the sort of algorithm which has traditionally been sought [is] a not quite attainable ideal."

- Uh, so, NO is the answer we're looking for. Now Kuhn included the fact that there is also a criteria problem that the brain is not capable to deal with (which I excluded above), but even if that is erased, there has been no progress on finding an appropriate algorithm for deciding between competing theories or data. This means that subjective factors must be included in the decision-making process. Let me say that again, this means that subjective factors must be included into the decision-making process.

Subjective Factors

Values

Most would attribute that word to such situations as "the guy picking up the prostitute in his Ford Taurus paid for by his trusting and hard-working wife has bad values."

-But Kuhn applies Values to the subjective factors that apply to scientific decision-making. Certain scientists value different things - different criteria for a theory or selecting ground-breaking as opposed to orthodoxy-confirming experiments.

"[Values] do specify a great deal: what each scientist must consider in reaching a decision, what he may and may not consider relevant, and what he can legitimately be required to report as the basis for the choice he has made."

Needless to say, this implies that the Time in which each scientist lives affects the values they use in decision-making. Different circumstances due to different Times might have resulted in different scientific outcomes. Kind of like the German people's WWII excuse!! (sorry, I know its cheap to use Nazi's when proving any point)

"Though idiosyncrasy must be invoked to explain why Kepler and Galileo were early converts to Copernicus's system, the gaps filled by their efforts to perfect it were specified by shared valued alone."

Consensus

-In the end, it is just the consensus of educated people, with idiosyncratic algorithms for decision choice that decide which theory should be propagated. One of Kuhn's main points is that the deciding data or experiment for theory justification usually comes far after it is the accepted practice. Scientists had to argue over which criteria they supported, which data was most convincing, etc. Now this should not be considered total relativism, these are specialized people who are qualified to make these determinations and use pretty good evidence to back them up. But the belief that science moves along wholly objectively is objected to by Kuhn.

Just look at the vote on the definition of a "planet"