While string theory does not, at this point, predict our world, it can at the very least plausibly encompass it. No other theory has been shown to do that. Aaron Bergman’s book review of Peter Woit’s
I think there is always an upper limit with which we can assign “our beliefs” and when given a set of tools with which to assess our current situations in science, we learn that what was once “inconceivable” can now be believable.
So having assumed “this set of tools and the analysis’s of the beauty” and it’s allure, one can move forward, as I have, based on these premises. To take it into the world we know and operate in. Indeed, how fragile a “house of Glass.”
While “this view” of myself is inclined to a metaphysical point of view, and less then adequate to the valuations of science, I can be thought of, “as less then,” and sent to the exclusions of the evaluation that science demands. This does not change “my philosophical point of view.” We know what science thinks of this too.:)
This enlightenment experience is a realization about the nature of the mind which entails recognizing it (in a direct, experiential way) as liminocentrically organized. The overall structure is paradoxical, and so the articulation of this realization will ‘transcend’ logic – insofar as logic itself is based on the presumption that nested sets are not permitted to loop back on themselves in a non-heirarchical manner. 11
I have over my time researching the process here in science, learn to see the scientists in one form or another, equate themself according to the “peak realization and beyond” as something either God like, or, the allure of the “not believable.”
To me such a “systemic behaviour” can cause outward afflictions to the associates in science. These are less then wanting in regards to characterization. A religiosity’s appeal to the beyond, whether atheistic as a position or not. This must be perceived as either being realistic, or felt wanting for, as an adherence to the ethics and morality of science.
Has become something more then the topic of string theory itself. While we think about the issue in regard to science’s pursuance, this has been deterred by other issues, as I relate them in regards too, “the Conceivable and the not Believable.”
The Inconceivable being Believable
Anomaly and the Emergence of Scientific Discoveries[/b] Kuhn now moves past his initial topic of paradigm to scientific discovery saying that in order for there to be a discovery, an anomaly must be detected within the field of study. He discusses several different studies and points out the anomaly that invoked the scientific discovery. Later in the chapter he begins to discuss how the anomaly can be incorporated into the discovery to satisfy the scientific community.
There are three different characteristics of all discoveries from which new sorts of phenomena emerge. These three characteristics are proven through an experiment dealing with a deck of cards. The deck consisted of anomalous cards (e.g. the red six of spades shown on the previous page) mixed in with regular cards. These cards were held up in front of students who were asked to call out the card they saw, and in most cases the anomaly was not detected.
I of course weight the relations and counterpoints held by Steven Weinberg in this case. I would rather think about the “essence of observation here” rather then the foundational ideas exemplified by the whole issue of paradigm change.
The Revolution that Didn’t Happen by Steven Weinberg
I first read Thomas Kuhn’s famous book The Structure of Scientific Revolutions1 a quarter-century ago, soon after the publication of the second edition. I had known Kuhn only slightly when we had been together on the faculty at Berkeley in the early 1960s, but I came to like and admire him later, when he came to MIT. His book I found exciting.
Evidently others felt the same. Structure has had a wider influence than any other book on the history of science. Soon after Kuhn’s death in 1996, the sociologist Clifford Geertz remarked that Kuhn’s book had “opened the door to the eruption of the sociology of knowledge” into the study of the sciences. Kuhn’s ideas have been invoked again and again in the recent conflict over the relation of science and culture known as the science wars.
So we come to the real topic here. How one opens the door to what is considered “beyond.” I will only point to the previous persons who have allowed themself the freedoms to move from a position of the inconceivable, who have worked the process in science, and come up with an idealization of what they have discovered. What it means to them now, as they assume this new “paradigm change,” to the way the work had always seemed to them.
I will point to the “airs with which such transitions” take place that the environment is conducive to such journeys, that the place selected, could be the most idealistic in terms of where one may feel that their creativity is most aptly felt to themselves. Of course such issues as to the temperances of such creativity is always on my mind too, yet it is of essence that life be taken care of, and that such nurturing understand that the best of society is always the luxuries with which we can assign happiness? Then these in society become the grandeur of art and culture to become, the freedoms of expression, while there is always this struggle to survive.