= 27d567bc2d48d9f40e9ccc20ea370b15)
PhilGoetz comments on The things we know that we know ain't so - Less Wrong
You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.
= 783df68a0f980790206b9ea87794c5b6)
Loading…= b715d02e85f7b3b4ae65ca3d3e450868)
Subscribe to RSS Feed
Powered by Reddit
= f037147d6e6c911a85753b9abdedda8d)
You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.
Comments (148)
Kuhn's paradigm shifts deal with the problem of diffusing new scientific theories. But I think it's a different issue. Kuhn claims that paradigm shift is difficult because people on different sides of the shift speak in incommensurate terms, and so can't understand each other. In the case of Broca's/Wernicke's areas, there's no problem communicating between different paradigms or even vocabularies.
Kuhn may be wrong here.
If two people are speaking with the same terms, but using these terms to mean different things, it might be more difficult (not less) to accept new scientific data. Especially if such terms are highly associated with out-dated scientific 'facts.'
Whether or not a particular brain region is related to language function isn't close to the kind of thing that would be ignored because of the existing paradigm.
The terminological problem is a BIG problem, especially if we are aspiring to Aumann Agreement, but the term paradigm shift is also used to describe changes that don't have that property.
I don't think this involves a paradigm shift of any kind. It's a matter of looking at a lot of brains and seeing where they are damaged.
agreed. I mean more generally.