Quote Originally Posted by hazetwostep
i'm not understanding on pg 36 where the author talks about a "scientific revolution" not really being about truth... i cannot see how a paradigm that does not have a factual basis could survive...
Well... Greendestinys answer is very good, so i will let his words be mine... i only would like to add that every paradigm has factual basis... they are based upon choosen facts that seems to fit together forming a coherent unity, which gives origin to the paradigm. But, no paradigm can explain all facts, and thats why there is competition between them. I would say that the difference between paradigms lies in which facts they choose as important (and try to explain) and which facts they choose as irrelevant (and try to deny/forget).
Coelho Reviewed by Coelho on . Why i think a Theory of Everything wont be ever made Well... today the scientists, mainly the physicists, search for a "theory of everything", a theory which explain all the physical phenomena in the universe. But i (as a physicist) believe they wont suceed. Imagine that you are an observer, and are examining, lets say, an atom. I know that atoms are not rigid spheres, but its not the point. If you were doing so, when you looked at the atom, you would see something like the picture below. If you didnt know that what you was seeing on the Rating: 5