From: cam@castle.ed.ac.uk (Chris Malcolm)
Newsgroups: alt.astrology
Subject: Re: same old same old
Date: 11 Oct 92 23:29:54 GMT
Organization: Edinburgh University

In article <9OCT199222122568@vxcrna.cern.ch> casper@vxcrna.cern.ch (CASPER,DAVI./PPE) writes:
>In article <26757@castle.ed.ac.uk>, cam@castle.ed.ac.uk (Chris Malcolm) writes...
>>In article <9OCT199212410150@vxcrna.cern.ch> casper@vxcrna.cern.ch (CASPER,DAVI./PPE) writes:

>>>This is simply, utterly, and demonstrably false.  In the case of physics,
>>>theories are discarded almost overnight when compelling evidence arrives.

>>This is simply, utterly, and demonstrably false. How long was it
>>before Newton's "magical" notion of gravity as an instantaneous effect
>>at a distance was accepted by every physicist? 

>>How long was it before Einstein's relativity was accepted by every physicist?

[Historic details omitted]

>So you are arguing
>that dissent is not uncommon or impossible in science - is that not the
>opposite of the point you were trying to make?

No. You said "In the case of physics, theories are discarded almost
overnight when compelling evidence arrives." I was simply providing
some counter-examples where argument and dissent continued long after
compelling evidence was available. Of course this turns on what is
"compelling", and experimental results can be interpreted in many
ways. One man's compelling result is another's experimental error.

>>Why did Kuhn suggest, in his theory of scientific revolutions based largely
>>on the history of physics, that in many cases the die-hards never convert to
>>the new ideas, and that one has to wait for them actually to die before a
>>new paradigm is generally accepted?

>Ask Kuhn.  I never said there weren't die-hards.  You are making the leap from
>the existence of this sort of person to their being the majority. 

Ah! So when you said theories were "discarded almost overnight" you
meant "by a majority". But the point is that a scientist, when called
upon to give the view of his science (and not his own personal view),
will certainly _not_ say "physicists think X" if only 60% do. He will
be very careful to say "Most think X, but a substantial minority think
Y, and a few go so far as to think Z."

I think you will find that in those cases where nearly everyone was
rapidly converted, that they were ready to do so, in the sense that
the old view was widely doubted, and they were waiting for a sign
indicating where next to go.

You started this thread by castigating astrologers for not doing the
decent thing when scientific evidence contrary to their beliefs came
along. I think they do just the same as scientists do when contrary
evidence comes along, but they already have considerable investment in
the old explanatory scheme, and a satisfactory replacement is not in
sight. They defend and prevaricate, trusting that sooner or later
someone will come up with a decent defence of their intuitions. But
astrologers, being outsiders, don't operate the modern
institutionalised version of the scientific method, with peer-reviewed
journals, academic promotions, etc.. They still work in the amateur
tradition that science followed in Kepler's time, which is much slower
paced.

I don't think you can fairly expect more of them.
-- 
Chris Malcolm    cam@uk.ac.ed.aifh          +44 (0)31 650 3085
Department of Artificial Intelligence,    Edinburgh University
5 Forrest Hill, Edinburgh, EH1 2QL, UK                DoD #205