I'm just going to copy what I said in 2023
paradigm shift is the crux of Kuhnian theory, the key to scientific revolutions throughout history. However, there's a glaring issue at the core of this: how do you argue that one paradigm is "correct" when both paradigms necessarily define themselves as true? We need to rely on faith. Faith that gravity on earth exerts a force of 10 meters per second per second, and that this won't suddenly stop being true.
Count Piast isn't incorrect in his judgements. It's the same as Badeni had said about Rafal's original writings when he had first read it. There is a strong social element in the world of science, and the only difference between Badeni and Piast here is that Badeni believed more in the movement of the earth than piast in the movement of the sun. (This is one of the core issues I hold with Kuhn, as he believes that despite this, scientific progress has no sociopolitical factors and moves in a strictly linear fashion.)
That is one thing I do want people to take away from this series, science, even when it wasn't marching straight, is always pursuing truth. Agendas may warp our perception of data, politics may drive funding away from important causes, but the march never stops.
blakekathryn
jacobvanloon
discoholicmusic
prguitarman
gummygunk
areudirty
yousharknotpass
dailybridgerton
