INTRODUCTION
A scientific theory is generated when you start thinking deeply about a subject and then it warps logical, conceptual and historical conditions under which it was developed. You normally have a somewhat superficial view of all knowledge and, more than that, do not stop to think about any particular problem. The failures of our theories, we are able to quickly create ad hoc devices to explain to them: "But it should not be so if the theory was correct? Should, but in this particular case ..." and so we invent an excuse to explain that we shall not dwell on the issue seriously uncomfortable. So the effect of chance, persistence, and / or insolence of some souls, and also for his brilliant intellectuals, some scholars end up strongly interested in any subject, being able to question him with honesty, seeking its flaws and its limits conceptual look into the literature to try to understand it correctly, deeply, sincerely. So the first thing to do is (1) define a problem or area of \u200b\u200bexpertise, from (2) to know the current status of knowledge in the field, so (3) define their problems and shortcomings, find out what can be improved and how.
The ANOMALY that triggers COMES THE GENESIS OF MASKED Misunderstanding
If we do a critical reading of this literature in a particular area of \u200b\u200bresearch, with some chance encounter some point we can not quite understand . The first fact in the construction of knowledge is true that a researcher can never accept any part in the misunderstanding of what it does, read or work. He needs to understand everything you read ... but if the same background, he does not understand. And so, this lack of a correct understanding of certain theoretical detail will first be viewed as a failure of their own cognitive system of the reader - even foolish - to understand that particular question. (In most cases, even believe this is even the case.) So, this student will be required to read or reread peripheral literatures as many times as necessary on the subject that caused this misunderstanding until it becomes somewhat more clear and understandable. The failure of the reader's understanding, however, may be directly related to a problem that Thomas Kuhn called incommensurability (Kuhn, 1962). The lack of understanding that we can have on a particular issue may be related to the fact that the means by which constitute our conceptual system to understand that problem is conceptually different from normal accepted by the science paradigm. Thus, the manner in which this problem is now understood by experts in the field (a) conflicts with (b) what we learned in our general intellectual training, there is a mismatch at first sight incomprehensible assumptions or concepts of (a ) and (b).
Gaston Bachelard (1884-1962) was a French philosopher of science. In his work "The formation of the scientific spirit," Bachelard conducts what it calls a psychoanalysis of knowledge, identifying some of the pillars on which was based on the formation of knowledge in pre-scientific eras and scientific. He thus tries to find patterns and generalize the "scientific explanations" for a given time. Is adept of the idea of \u200b\u200bepistemological rupture, where theories are replaced over time, an idea which culminated in the concept of Kuhnian paradigms.
is worth noting that the knowledge of books was certainly produced in earlier times, in former times. In modern days, science has evolved, its methods have evolved, the intellectual paradigms are different. And therein may lie the germ of the conflict between (a) and (b). And so the sciences and the bodies of knowledge (memeplexes) need to be modernized, and the researcher's task perform this critical update. Gaston Bachelard, for example, shows in his work "The formation of scientific spirit" (1938) several of the intellectual paradigms of science in so-called pre-scientific age . He begins what he calls psychoanalysis of knowledge and identifies recurring patterns used by the intellectuals of the pre-scientific to explain the world, such as unity, substantial or animism. In the scientific age the intellectual paradigms that should be used as a source of explanation have been modified, although certainly keep up the legacy of the originals. In the scientific age they are more related to mechanism, rationalism, reductionism, cybernetics. Maybe we could predict that a post-science will be more concerned with an understanding of the process broadly, where the slogan would be concepts, relations, complexity and, again, unity. Thus, the same issues are dealt with in other ways and the answers are sought in new guises.
The misunderstanding, therefore, is often caused by differences paradigmatic of the intelligentsia of the times when a certain statement was accepted as true, times were different and science must then update the knowledge given new epistemological paradigms. The misunderstanding may arise undoubtedly disguised under the cloak of these differences than today if you value and what happened in the past. The scholar who wants to build a new scientific theory must therefore try to understand all the concepts generated in the past and was made to reach them when you want to make new contributions to a particular scientific subject, (2) it must strive to understand all the concepts with which it works intellectually. He must also understand (3) which were based on the previous generation of researchers to consider them correct. Will be precisely these flaws understanding, given the incommensurability between the researcher modern thinking right and what is actually accepted into the community to be correct, given a historical tradition epistemological where are stored the seeds of "scientific revolutions" . A careful and critical reading (close reading), so it is extremely relevant to understanding and critique of the conceptual system from which we wish to explore while know. The definition of the exact point of incomprehension allows researchers to identify the point of questioning, and from him, from this anomaly, the researcher must now explain it in the new epistemological paradigms and intellectuals of his time and get right there, a recast in the form of conceptual understanding that knowledge. This reformulation may be puntual or may generate reflections around the point of misunderstanding that will roam the redesign, in large measures, the entire conceptual system established.
For efficient modification of human knowledge on a particular subject must first thinker (1) understand perfectly what you think about a subject in the epistemological tradition from which he comes, (2) be able to discern a better answer based on conceptual grounds rather different. To the extent that the thinker comprises (1) and its alternative (2) perfectly, it can be considered bilingual, as defined by Thomas Kuhn. The third stage of scientific development is the (3) put face-to-face theories and showing the best adaptation of a new idea with respect to the old idea. This new adaptation can be based on measurable criteria or completely subjective.
the bilingual: SCIENCE AS A LANGUAGE
Identified then a place to share - (3) place where our understanding of this problem differs from the traditional understanding - the savant (philosopher-scientist) looks on one issue of incommensurability "own X consensus "to clarify the issue.
is noteworthy that is to investigate more on the fact that judges have little knowledge or have misunderstood is that the scientist becomes finally able to understand what the current paradigm means when he says what it says. So I am convinced that from the beginning, the scientist already sees the world differently from the theory. However, to advance the knowledge of his time, he will explain exactly what his criticism and present it in a clearly, simply and directly. Since it is expected that the scientist already knows what he thinks and knows in order to put their arguments to explain why you think so, he needs to learn what science is about the classic academic subject, at which point it becomes (4) bilingual (Kuhn, 1983). This is the main moment the genesis of a scientific theory, when it is finally understood to be three important facts: (a) what is normally accepted by the academy, (b) what the savant really think about the problem; and (c) the explicit differences between (a) and (b).
Science can be regarded as a language, or rather as a set of languages. Each specialty has a set of concepts and words used as jargon for the search. Just as anyone familiar with an area of \u200b\u200bjargon, reads information about another is that much of this misunderstanding comes from knowledge. There's another area in the text does not know the words and it uses them so different from ours. It takes a while to get used to, it is necessary that our brains fill certain gaps of misunderstanding that form - something that is not where we read our texts more specific area. To learn that particular language, we need to know certain words and know the rules that bind them to allow the efficient representation of the physical world. A mathematician, however, has a vision and tries to explain the world in a different form of a sociologist, a biologist, an anthropologist. The first questions that you do some work in trying to understand a system are highly dependent on science which he learned before the university indoctrination; or her own personal life. The languages \u200b\u200bare different from scientists and scientific innovation often comes from trying to synthesis and integration of languages \u200b\u200bbetween different fields of knowledge. This summary just part of incomprehension before the reading area distinct and honest attempt to understand it as knowledge.
Moreover, the manner in which words and concepts submissions are also dependent on the intellectual paradigms of an era. Although we can understand the Greeks or Renaissance philosophers, some of their buildings or logical rules followed to arrive at certain conclusions are not seen as valid for us today. When the pre-Socratic philosopher Thales of Miletus says that the essence of the universe is water, we can not see it as correct, although in his day there were people who really took it seriously and followed him because they believe it. Likewise, when Descartes reflects on the bloodstream or conclude on the existence of God, we know the flaws their arguments and no longer accept that argument in a definitive and / or categorical. The intellectual paradigms change from time to time and the sciences need to conform to new zeitgeists of times when they are formulated. This idea is originally contained in the Spirit of Hegel's philosophy. Bachelard talks extensively about the influence of these intellectual fashions in scientific work, followed by a more specific way by Kuhn.
Well, I've been talking so far that to occur the genesis of a new theory, it is necessary that (i) an understanding of the theory "fashion" and (ii) will lead to creation of a new conceptual framework for the modern scientist, and finally (iii) there is the clash between intellectual (i) and (ii) to generate new knowledge, modern, updated at the time is described. I must admit, however, that too often, new knowledge is proposed without knowing exactly his relationship with the ancient knowledge, paradigmatic. Newtonian physics and Einsteinian , for example, could never be fully integrated for many applications and is used today either, and not a synthetic integration between the two. Einstein seems to have followed the pattern provided herein. He just found a point of criticism of the Newtonian theory - especially in regard to the speed of light - and so developed his theories. Neither Albert nor many who came after him seem to have managed (or bothered) to make this clear contrast between old and new theory. Nevertheless, both theories have now used differently in our society. Clearly, at many points they have been incorporated in others not. While physicists Einstein and still works with those who followed him in the grounds of quantum mechanics and its sub-divisions, the engineer still has his column in Newton theory.
Thomas Samuel Kuhn (1922-1996) was one of the greatest twentieth-century epistemologists. He created the concept of incommensurability of scientific theories - where no one can ever tell if a theory is truly better than another. Accused of relativism, Kuhn suggests that theories are incommensurable because they use different vocabulary, he suggests that the concepts of mass and strength, for example, have been applied differently by Newton and Einstein. The two theories could only be confronted, he said, by an individual bi-lingual, ie able to understand both theories (despite the syntactic similarity under which lurks semantic difference) and check, for a special case, which one would apply more appropriately. In this post I use the incommensurability in a context in which it presents itself as a linguistic and conceptual pit which must be crossed by a bridge that rationale for the genesis of new scientific theories is reached.
LINGUISTIC CONFLICT BETWEEN OLD AND NEW SCIENTIFIC THEORIES
After so bilingual that can understand the theory proposed in accordance with the prevailing thought in its deepest foundations, he also goes directly to understand what is supported, conceptually, their own new theory. Having understood the thinking of its alternative - and imagines that their own knowledge has been long understood - (5) the philosopher can compare the conflicting visions of a more direct way, trying to remain impartial and to verify both the adequacy of one or other theory with respect to empirical evidence and the their suitability for a conceptual model that perceives more broadly, adequate or beautiful human knowledge acquired within an epistemological tradition.
In most cases, given that human knowledge is already in advanced level , will realize that the newly invented theory was simply wrong or failed at some point. There more ways to produce a wrong theory of what a correct. In these cases, the philosopher automatically modify their thinking to incorporate in their conceptual system theory prevailing paradigm, using it thereafter as a pillar and valid theoretical framework for solving problems related to the area in question. If this happens, the thinker will have proved your stupidity or naiveté and need to accept that the canonical knowledge was correct. However, if all individuals accept the knowledge already obtained as a valid response, human knowledge would not evolve. Thank goodness, then, that the rebels there to question them and try to collapse them into piles shards of old and rotten. It is worth quoting the famous words of Einstein: " To punish me for my disrespect for authority, fate made myself an authority. "
However, in a few instances, the body of evidence examined by the philosopher show more beautiful or appropriate given a new era, aesthetic or way of thinking of mankind [1]. It will be better and more virtuous than the ancient knowledge will prove most appropriate and explain phenomena that are still misunderstood. The new theory, therefore, will have what the philosopher Karl Popper called greater empirical content than the previously existing theory [2]. Thus, when the researcher understands both competing theories with accuracy and is able to explain why yours is better than force, he finds a fertile field of work. Thus, having once understood the difference rationally and best fit between the model and the consensus model of its era, one that seeks the development of human knowledge and feel anguish even an obligation to write something revealing and explaining in detail the advantages of a new point of view regarding the paradigmatic point of view [3].
ACCEPTANCE OF NEW SCIENTIFIC THEORIES
It is time then to write a work. And now only those devices are not worth the scientific and rational arguments to show the superiority of a new theory on an earlier one. The scientist needs to use rhetoric, something which Schopenhauer called eristic , ie the ability to convince others of a viewpoint (Schopenhauer, 1830). It's part (6) important work of the scientist and philosopher know how to write, knowing convincing, arguments and evidence pinching know the flaws of the previous model and the advantages of the new model.
is worth noting that the amount of political scientist who has influence, no doubt, in accepting his new models. Some great scientists such as Gregor Mendel, were forgotten for more than three decades before his brilliant publications were to be re-discovered to mark the origin of science Genetics. But Mendel was merely a poor monk studying at the ends of the Czech republic, far from great knowledge of the unfolding grand Darwin in Victorian England at the time. No one will notice their existence. The evolutionary theories of Lamarck - that revolutionized and criticized a biological model fixista already deteriorated and patently false, inherited from Aristotle - were overshadowed by the personality of Buffon, his mentor and great French naturalist at the time, it seemed only find interesting their theories, without giving them due weight. Others, like Albert Einstein, were able to avenge an early age. Even then, three of the great works of German physicist were published in 1905 (in his annus mirabilis when he was only 25 years) and he only came to win the Nobel in 1921, sixteen years later.
Frenchman Lamarck, the monk Gregor Mendel Czech and German Albert Einstein. Each of the three great geniuses whose works were criticized and accepted differently. Lamarck was ridiculed by the great name of French naturalism at the time, Buffon. Mendel had completely forgotten his theories for 35 years and only was recognized as a great scientist after his death. Einstein was already well recognized in his lifetime, but only came to win the Nobel Prize 16 years after the publication of some of his major theories.
SCIENTIFIC PROGRESS are attacked by OLD SCIENTISTS AND YOUNG SCIENTISTS revered by
(or MAJOR RENOVATIONS IN SCIENCE CONCEPTUAL OCCURRED MORE LIKELY IN REPLACEMENT OF GENERATIONS)
Then it's just a slow and gradual way that the community specialists in the area will be able to accept the changes in an effort responsible for evaluating the adequacy of each new vision with the standards of accepted reality in a given time. I would say, typically, the differences and advantages of a new theory on the older one will be reasonably clear to be understood by people not yet started scientific practice in the area of \u200b\u200binterest, or beginners. Moreover, much of the great names of science in a given season will already be indoctrinated in paradigmatic science and act as buffers of scientific revolutions. Thus, it seems to me that a (7) of the best ways to test the suitability of a new theory about an ancient to present arguments both for a beginner area (neophyte) and ask him to choose one as the best of them. The newcomer is certainly a rational being who must submit the most basic knowledge about an area and does not have an attachment to the tradition of current research. It is precisely this attachment to the traditional paradigm that hangs for some time to accept new ideas in science. Bachelard seems to agree with the idea while reporting on his work "The formation of the scientific spirit" that an epistemologist irreverent said that great men were useful to science in the first half of life and damaging the other half. Thomas Kuhn also says that one generation should be replaced to modify it completely invalid as a paradigmatic knowledge (Kuhn, 1962). Thus, one would assume that the development of knowledge depends somewhat on biological development and there seems to be a cognitive limitation that makes human beings cling to certain conceptual schemes in authoritarian and dogmatic. Lakatos presents a concept of intellectual honesty which is directly related to identifying the precise conditions under which an individual is willing to change his mind (Lakatos, 1978). The existence of the fundamentalists and the great strength religions reinforces the fact that we are not, in general, intellectually honest. It would be strange if scientists would flee to this type of rule over the human being.
THE WRONG INTERPRETATION OF DATA IN THE CLASSICAL THEORY AND BOYCOTT THE YOUNG SCIENTISTS SCIENTISTS FOR OLD-PARADIGMATIC
Returning to the question of comparison between two theories, we can see a problem, however, when the theory is more consistent theory and not the new paradigm. In such cases, the newly created theory suggests that a problem is observed through a different conceptual approach of that force. In these cases worth noting that even the empirical data existing at the time of confrontation of the new theory against the current theory can not be interpreted effectively, seeing that was not linked with the fashion world now is concerned that, given the new theory. There was a conceptual change! Thus, it is possible that an extremely crucial factor - given the conceptual development of the new problem - has been completely overlooked in experiments performed according to the theory paradigm! In fact, information of the utmost importance given the new theory could have been completely ignored when assessing a problem supposed to answer empirical questions of science paradigm - many of which are now perceived as irrelevant or misguided, given the new theory.
While it is clear that the characteristic of a researcher depends more on individual than his age, is more likely that young people are the most current intellectual paradigms of their times than the old, then that will act as defenders of the status quo knowledge (caps of Scientific Revolutions). Einstein himself is an example of this observation inspired by Bachelard: he was a rebel theoretical in his youth and the older, refused to accept the development of quantum mechanics, believing until the end of life that "God does not play dice", in a classic dispute with Niels Bohr. He never accepted the concepts of quantum physics probabísticos.
is why, too, that the old researchers often act as buffers of scientific revolutions. In fact, the question depends less on age than the researcher's intellectual honesty with respect to scientific research. A new theory may show that several surveys in recent decades tried find order in the wrong place, they did not attack what is now seen as central to the problem. The young scientist therefore, highlights the stupidity or incompetence of the paradigmatic scientist. The new theory apart like a house of cards the whole career of decades of research by older, which will cause a political problem for the young genius. The researcher who has worked for 30 years with a particular problem will be, at the time, and genius on the subject will be the one who will address all the social issues related to the subject. He will act politically in the scientific arena of a country and its voice will be heard. Having worked with commitment to science over decades, is expected to be right. And suddenly, just a couple come with a theory ill-fitted (as are all new theories) or to destroy decades of research prove inconsistent with government funding? The old scientist at the height of his intellectual pride , never accept the new theory now and will do everything possible to boycott all the young scientist and his alleged new ideas. The old scientist will then use arguments of authority and explicit boycott the youth to show that his group did in the past 30 years and millions of dollars of value is yes - instead of simply trying to be accepting what can not be find (second fold the new theory). This can be considered the case of Lamarck, who was ridiculed by Buffon, the great naturalist who described the time and much of the fauna and flora of his time - with absolutely nothing to talk about evolution or on the transmutation of forms over time .
MINING AND DATA reinterpretation of PROOFING THE NEW THEORY
On the other hand though following the same line of argument, although some thought irrelevant information when conducting their experiments, scientists normal prevailing paradigm of science may have checked yes information important in the context of new theory and added in their work, even in a methodologically incomplete or just as a curiosity or a general observation, data are extremely relevant given the new scientific context. This means that, given the new theory, a large number of facts have to be fished from other jobs - where there is an indirect reference to them - and reinterpreted for use in the early stages of corroboration of it, by replacing old theory of this new, according to the progression Lakatosian a series of research programs (Lakatos, 1978).
explained above this point so much as a rapidly identifies because the new theories are normally regarded as quite speculative and because there is a time lapse between the suggestion of a theory of empirical content clearly larger than its predecessor - the new theory is initially set aside for a while until more precise evidence (and younger scientists) come to corroborate it with greater efficiency and more appropriate [4]. Certainly the new theories entice the mind of researchers, to know them and observe them while performing their jobs, bringing the number to themselves the evidence for and against competing theories then. Soon, the scientist who works in a normal field in particular have an opinion about which theory he thinks fit more seamlessly into their experience on the subject.
In fact, it seems to me that a new scientific theory, as proposed, should provide a rational basis and an empirical basis likely quite large and well-grounded, so that she can at least have a chance to try to replace the theory force that has already been verified and that work quite efficiently, even if incomplete, given the presence of serious anomalies. That means a new theory, at the outset, it must satisfy at least the falsificationist methodological that - despite not need an empirical base already proven, as required by falsificationist naive (or dogmatic) - supports a new theory as valid if it (i) has a greater empirical content than the paradigmatic theory and (ii) provide the possibility to be confirmed soon by some experiments crucial (Lakatos, 1978).
While one can create ad hoc devices to save the theory if she has no success in certain crucial tests and that the Duhem-Quine thesis will haunt our own confidence in crucial experiments, empirical data can indeed provide a satisfactory agreement with theoretical predictions. And this agreement can finally confirm some extent the new theory.
CONCLUSION Finally, perhaps it is worth noting that Kuhn gives much strength to the fact that new theories arise only when one realizes the existence of anomalies in theories. Such anomalies are commonly understood as observable and repeatable flaws in current theory. It's enough to argue that these anomalies are not typically viewed by scientists as overly problematic paradigm. It is known that no theory can explain all the flaws and accepts a normally and it uses ad hoc devices to integrate it into the large body of knowledge paradigm. Only one scientist who proposes a new theory that is finally able to explain why the old theory failed to predict given. For example, the failure to predict the perihelion of Mercury by Newtonian physics was not regarded as serious flaw until Einstein's theory came to explain it with detail and precision more suitable. Thus, although theories and that these anomalies have to build up over time, such anomalies are just noticed how serious given a new way of seeing and conceptualizing the information that can better explain these events . It is this new theory that allows better now yeah understanding and study of facts characterized as flaws in the old theory. So I think here the issue of reverse fault in Kuhn. For Kuhn is the anomaly that pulls the theoretical development, and sometimes I agree that might be so. However I believe it is more common (i) the creation of a new theory that can start from any point and only then, (ii) the verification that this new theory explains more clearly something that previously was not possible to be explained and which is now seen as an anomaly resolved, showing greater empirical content of the new theory created.
POSTSCRIPT
All issues being described here reached to study critically the work of Bachelard, Kuhn, Popper, Lakatos, etc., and I even have some new theories that could never accurately describe biological concepts but that question of race, species, genes and evolution in compatilibilidade sexual reproduction. In developing my theoretical studies on these subjects, I could see how the current theories are incorrect and incomplete. And to send my manuscripts or ideas to some major researchers in the field, just getting them to ostracism and contempt. Some causes of this contempt are (i) I am a young researcher coming from an underdeveloped country to throw down the decades their research, (ii) my theories are not exactly well written, (iii) current research do not provide exactly the data you want to prove and (iv) can actually be mistaken as to their relevance. I do not care, in fact, that some day or will not recognize these ideas as true or better than today. In fact I believe it will happen, even though my name is not associated with them, which does not really matter much to me. What really excites me is being able to apply the classical theories in my own studies and thus attempt to better understand how to develop the advancement of human knowledge in its sphere intellectual, political and history.
Some references
* Kuhn, TS (1962) The structure of scientific revolutions.
* Kuhn, TS (1983) Commensurability, Comparability, communicability in "The Road since Structure *". *
Lakatos, I (1970) Falsification and the Methodology of Scientific research programs. *
Schopenhauer, The (1830) The Art Of Controversy, translated 1896 by T. Bailey Saunders, MA London: Swan Sonnenschein & Co., Lim
* Bachelard, G (1938). The formation of the scientific spirit: a contribution to psychoanalytic knowledge.
First version written in 07/Julho/2007
[1] We must not forget here that the primacy of reason is also an aesthetic value that has been long considered bad or rotten in favor of acceptance of dogma - as occurred in middle age. Thus the reversal of the value of reason in favor of purely aesthetic values \u200b\u200btends to corrupt and irrational advance our epistemology. We should therefore always seek to base our epistemology paradigm in a libertarian and non-dogmatic.
[2] The fact of the theory to have even more or less empirical content matters only so far he can convince his peers that this content is truly greater. In fact, the physical Newton is best applied today mostly in technology and engineering than the almost intractable Einsteinian physics. Nevertheless, Einstein proved to everybody that was more right than Newton and officially accepted to physical einteiniana even if you use the Newtonian.
[3] It is possible that the initial proponent of a theory he has not even been able to glimpse its most explicit differences from a previously accepted theory. And indeed, this seems the most common case. In this case, other followers of the first individual will be responsible for explaining exactly what he meant and how all this new theory contradicts the old and improvement in certain aspects. The vast majority of cases these differences are never explicitly identified and the choice of one over the other rests on tariff issues and possibly even aesthetic nature, temporal, historical.
[4] reads excerpts from the most famous scientific work of all time, Newton's Principia, show how his understanding of the matter is still in many respects, superficial and incomplete. Only with time is that the assimilation of the concepts can be understood and then used appropriately by the proponents of certain scientific theory. Every new theory is therefore a challenge that only linguistic and intellectual become more appropriate over the years.
[5] The first step to take when you want to advance knowledge is to understand and fully comprehend what one thinks about it today. While reading, however, the reader will encounter incomprehension. First hypothesis: stupidity. Second hypothesis: the reader understands better the knowledge of what the theorists of his time if you write it so you can start the genesis of a new scientific theory.
