Re: Why Weston Price is not the dominant food paradigm

[Guest guest]

Here is the last paragraph. This is why I love Ray Peat, even if I don't agree

with everything he says. He questions everything.

" But it took Professor Kuhn to provide a comprehensive model of the adoption and

maintenance of scientific belief. Basically, he states that scientists, in any

given area, come to adopt a fundamental vision or matrix of an explanatory

theory, a vision that Kuhn calls a " paradigm. " And whatever the paradigm,

whether it be the atomic theory or the phlogiston theory, once adopted the

paradigm governs all the scientists in the field without being any longer

checked or questioned — as the Whig model would have it. "

Joan

>

> http://tinyurl.com/ya2vtje

>

> An introductory explanation as to why bad science (like the diet-heart

> hypothesis or soy as health food) can dominate good science like the

> Weston Price paradigm.

>

>

> --

> Nutrition and Physical Regeneration

> http://nutrition-and-physical-regeneration.com/blog

>

[Guest guest]

On Tue, Dec 29, 2009 at 10:43 AM, coloredoctave <joanlulich@...>wrote:

>

>

> Here is the last paragraph. This is why I love Ray Peat, even if I don't

> agree with everything he says. He questions everything.

>

> " But it took Professor Kuhn to provide a comprehensive model of the

> adoption and maintenance of scientific belief. Basically, he states that

> scientists, in any given area, come to adopt a fundamental vision or matrix

> of an explanatory theory, a vision that Kuhn calls a " paradigm. " And

> whatever the paradigm, whether it be the atomic theory or the phlogiston

> theory, once adopted the paradigm governs all the scientists in the field

> without being any longer checked or questioned — as the Whig model would

> have it. "

>

> Joan

>

Joan,

Thanks for visiting. By the way, that isn't the last paragraph, it is the

middle of the article. :-)

--

Nutrition and Physical Regeneration

http://nutrition-and-physical-regeneration.com/blog

[Guest guest]

The only problem is that, according to Kuhn, one ought not to question the

dominant paradigm in most circumstances (only if the paradigm is experiencing a

crisis will there be legitimate casting about for new perspectives--and one

never goes back to an older perspective). The implication is that _refusing_ to

question foundational assumptions is vital for normal scientists in both old and

new paradigms. He dismissed any kind of critical thinking or multiplicity of

paradigms in mature science. So in essence, he would tell critics of the

diet-heart hypothesis that they shouldn't worry about anomalies (which are

normal in science) unless and until some new comprehensive perspective attracts

a new generation of scientists to follow that new perspective dogmatically.

This is why those who came out of the approach of Karl Popper (e.g. especially

Imre Lakatos and Feyerabend) found Kuhn's model so objectionable. Critical

thinking and competition of different perspectives are positively ruled out on

Kuhn's model. Where a new paradigm ends up replacing an old one (a rare

scientific revolution), the new one can not be shown to be rationally superior

since any criteria used to judge the one would be inapplicable to the other (the

incommensurability thesis).

Bill

> >

> > http://tinyurl.com/ya2vtje

> >

> > An introductory explanation as to why bad science (like the diet-heart

> > hypothesis or soy as health food) can dominate good science like the

> > Weston Price paradigm.

> >

> >

> > --

> > Nutrition and Physical Regeneration

> > http://nutrition-and-physical-regeneration.com/blog

> >

>

[Guest guest]

Thanks for the comment Bill, but since the full article (with critical

remarks) is on another site with the ability to comment there I will refrain

from a response here.

But you did remind me that I failed to answer some previous comments you

made in another thread regarding the JBS. I will remedy that shortly.

On Wed, Dec 30, 2009 at 8:33 AM, Bill <lynchwt@...> wrote:

>

>

> The only problem is that, according to Kuhn, one ought not to question the

> dominant paradigm in most circumstances (only if the paradigm is

> experiencing a crisis will there be legitimate casting about for new

> perspectives--and one never goes back to an older perspective). The

> implication is that _refusing_ to question foundational assumptions is vital

> for normal scientists in both old and new paradigms. He dismissed any kind

> of critical thinking or multiplicity of paradigms in mature science. So in

> essence, he would tell critics of the diet-heart hypothesis that they

> shouldn't worry about anomalies (which are normal in science) unless and

> until some new comprehensive perspective attracts a new generation of

> scientists to follow that new perspective dogmatically.

>

> This is why those who came out of the approach of Karl Popper (e.g.

> especially Imre Lakatos and Feyerabend) found Kuhn's model so

> objectionable. Critical thinking and competition of different perspectives

> are positively ruled out on Kuhn's model. Where a new paradigm ends up

> replacing an old one (a rare scientific revolution), the new one can not be

> shown to be rationally superior since any criteria used to judge the one

> would be inapplicable to the other (the incommensurability thesis).

>

> Bill

>

>

>