Paradigms and normal science

[coberst]

Paradigms and normal science

‘Normal science’, as described by Thomas Kuhn in his book “The Structure of Scientific Revolutions”, is the science of means, controlled generally by a paradigm. We normally use the word ‘science’, which has more than one meaning, to mean the ‘normal science’ that Kuhn speaks of. Science, to the laity, is a word encompassing technology and probably all that is good about the human ability to reason. I suspect the average person often wonders why everyone cannot be scientific about developing solutions for all problems. Why cannot we be scientific and rational in solving all our problems?

I have spent a good bit of time studying Kuhn's book but find that the deeper I dig the broader becomes the task. I think that “paradigm shift” has become part of the public lexicon and like all bumper stickers it is the only thing people know about the matter, and likewise, by thinking they know something, they think they know much more than they do.

I have the feeling that Kuhn has given us an insight into the nature of all sciences, all domains of knowledge, and that if we were to plumb the depths of his insight we would comprehend a great deal more about science than we now do. That is what I am trying to do. I am trying to understand this seminal concept that can be, I think, a means to understand the nature of knowledge.

There is apparently a good bit of controversy about Kuhn versus Popper. I think that these two men are searching a very different forest. I think that Popper is more of a natural sciences kind of guy and Kuhn is more of a world of knowledge kind of guy.

‘Normal science’, as described by Thomas Kuhn, is the science of means, controlled generally by a paradigm. We normally use the word ‘science’, which has more than one meaning, to mean the ‘normal science’ that Kuhn speaks of. Science, to the laity, is a word encompassing technology and probably all that is good about the human ability to reason. I suspect the average person often wonders why everyone cannot be scientific about developing solutions for all problems. Why cannot we be scientific and rational in solving all our problems?

Science is successful primarily because it is a domain of knowledge controlled by paradigms. The natural sciences such as physics operate within the confines of a paradigm. The paradigm defines the standards, principles and methods of the discipline. For example the laws of physics as developed by Newton are a paradigm. Einstein’s theory of relativity is a paradigm. The sanctity of the ‘market place’ is a paradigm of economics.

The college student of physics studies these paradigms of the science of physics to qualify for acceptance into that particular profession. From these paradigms patterns of recognition and routines and algorithms for solutions have evolved and are memorized by all students who wish to join that particular profession. An algorithm is a step-by-step process for solving a problem. A simple example of an algorithm is the process we learned to accomplish long division.

Science involves itself only in problems definable by paradigms and algorithms. Science is successful because it deals only with these mono-logical problems. These problems are circumscribed by the paradigm and contain many algorithms for guiding the practitioner into the proper mode for solution of the problem.







Normal science utilizes the ‘scientific method’ to solve problems. It is not apparent to the laity but science moves in incremental steps. Science seldom seeks and almost never produces major novelties. Science solves puzzles.

The “scientific method” forms the heart of scientific legitimacy. This method consists in assembling evidence, combining that evidence with assumptions, and analyzing the combination in a logical manner to develop a hypothesis. This hypothesis is the bases for predicting what should happen in certain conditions if this hypothesis is true. Evidence is assembled to test the validity of the hypothesis. If the evidence indicates that the hypothesis has not been proven to be invalid then other predictions based on the hypothesis are used to construct additional experiments to further test its legitimacy.

There are two very noteworthy characteristics of the scientific method that I wish to bring to your attention.

The validity of a hypothesis can only be determined by empirical evidence. Empirical evidence is obtained by observation alone. This means that only measurable quantities can be used to legitimate a scientific hypothesis. If an experiment cannot be created that will permit a physical measurement of the results verifying the hypothesis then the hypothesis cannot have any scientific legitimacy. For science, “to be”, is to be measurable. Empirical evidence is the only means for verification in the scientific world.

The second noteworthy characteristic, which follows from the first, is that scientific experimentation can only prove that a hypothesis has not yet been proven to be illegitimate. The empirical evidence derived from a test of a hypothesis proves, not that the hypothesis is true, but only that the hypothesis has not been proven to be untrue. Science does not deal in absolute truth but only in probability.

A set of hypotheses becomes a theory after sufficient tests have failed to show that any hypothesis in the set is invalid. The scientific community elevates the concept encompassed by the set to the more mature and prestigious nomenclature of being a theory.

Science offers no absolute truth. Science can speak with authority only in matters of fact. Any scientific theory can be shown to be invalid by one bit of evidence that proves that the theory cannot be true. No accumulation of evidence can ever prove any scientific theory to be absolutely true. Only theology presumes to offer absolute truth. This presumed truth of theology is a matter of faith but not a matter of fact.

Normal scientific research is devoted to accumulating evidence that supports and expands the horizon of the accepted paradigm. The scientific researcher anticipates the answer and organizes the research effort to verify that anticipated result. Science does not perform experiments upon matters wherein the results are not expected. This is the nature of puzzle solving. The end is known in great detail and that which is in doubt is the various ways of verifying that anticipated end. The prize winning puzzle solver is he or she with the cleverest efforts to reach the anticipated end result. Puzzles are problems that test the ingenuity and skill in puzzle solutions. The intrinsic value of the solution is virtually nil but the assured existence of a solution is essential.

The paradigm instructs the logic--the principles and criteria of validity of inference and demonstration--of the particular domain of knowledge encompassed by that paradigm. The logic of the paradigm insulates the professional group from problems that are unsolvable by that paradigm. One reason that science progresses so rapidly and with such assurance is because the logic of that paradigm allows the practitioners to work on problems that only their lack of ingenuity will keep them from solving.

The natural sciences are primarily puzzle solving operations. The natural sciences are useful for logical thinking but the uses of scientific learning are that most judgments required in life are not puzzle like.

Questions for discussion:

Why is the “intrinsic value virtually nil” when we solve puzzles?

Why has puzzle solving proven to be so successful for the normal sciences?

Are sciences such as psychology, sociology, and psychoanalysis ‘normal sciences’?

[Stark]

Oh christ here we go again.

[Eris]

This whole cut and paste form of argumentation is getting really annoying. Especially from sources that are just getting silly.

*ahem* To provide a general argument against Kuhn's programme: In order for his claim about radical paradigm shifts to work, the paradigms must be, in his own words, incommensurable, i.e. they cannot be rationally compared with one another. But this is clearly false, since there is something that can be compared between all paradigms regarding the same subject: The phenomena being described.

I don't know what this "world of knowledge" thing you speak of is, coberst, but if it's related to Kuhn's general project, I'm already heartily sceptical. He may have had some insights, but they were buried under piles of downright painful material. Popper was by far the clearer thinker: falsification is a good rule of thumb for the sciences, at least.

And if you're thinking of holism by world of knowledge, that's not Kuhn, that's Quine, and a completely different kettle of fish entirely. Quine after all was trying to explain science, not explain it away.

[coberst]

*ahem* To provide a general argument against Kuhn's programme: In order for his claim about radical paradigm shifts to work, the paradigms must be, in his own words, incommensurable, i.e. they cannot be rationally compared with one another. But this is clearly false, since there is something that can be compared between all paradigms regarding the same subject: The phenomena being described.

I agree.

[Hillary]

Science does not perform experiments upon matters wherein the results are not expected. This is the nature of puzzle solving. The end is known in great detail and that which is in doubt is the various ways of verifying that anticipated end.

Isn't this, like, complete bollocks?

[coberst]

Science does not perform experiments upon matters wherein the results are not expected. This is the nature of puzzle solving. The end is known in great detail and that which is in doubt is the various ways of verifying that anticipated end.

Isn't this, like, complete bollocks?

'Bollocks' is not in my dictionary? Is this an English word?

[Stile]

Science does not perform experiments upon matters wherein the results are not expected. This is the nature of puzzle solving. The end is known in great detail and that which is in doubt is the various ways of verifying that anticipated end.

Isn't this, like, complete bollocks?

'Bollocks' is not in my dictionary? Is this an English word?

It's alive!!!!

Bollocks are the dangly bits between some of our legs (meaning the real men here.)

[Starglider]

If this guy's objective is to get a critical review of his entire web site, I fail to see the point, since he is immune to criticism. I must conclude that he is a simple attention seeker and gets a thrill out of someone, anyone reading his crap. Since it's here now;

‘Normal science’, as described by Thomas Kuhn in his book “The Structure of Scientific Revolutions”,

Which is massively over-referenced, basically because it opened the floodgates (not that it was the first book to cover these issues, just the first modern popular one) for a whole load of useless humanities people to start justifying their vast tracts of pointless verbiage on the basis of it applying to people (in the physical sciences) doing real useful research work.

is the science of means, controlled generally by a paradigm.

There is a reason 'paradigm' is on the buzzword bingo card; it's fluffy, fuzzy and non-specific. Replace 'paradigm' with 'base theory, which many other theories in the field build upon' and you have made it more specific while also making it clear that you are simply pointing out the obvious. But then, pointing out the obvious in esoteric vocabulary that makes it seem like a revelation is a speciality of philosophers in general and the stuff you quote in particular. Note that this is not the same as translating things that seem obvious to humans into a formal model, which is real, useful and often hard work.

I suspect the average person often wonders why everyone cannot be scientific about developing solutions for all problems.

Unlikely. Most people are wildly overconfident about their own and people in general's intuitive and informal ability to solve problems. Most people aren't good at applying science and try to convince themselves this isn't a (relevant) weakness.

Why cannot we be scientific and rational in solving all our problems?

Laziness, lack of education, impatience, people using appeals to emotion to force the answers they want. Though to be fair, human intuition handles most trivial everyday problems adequately, so there's no point being anal and overanalysing everything.

I think that “paradigm shift” has become part of the public lexicon

Because it sounds cool to people who like pointless buzzwords. 'New fundamental theory/model/technology/organisation/process' (pick based on application) would be better.

likewise, by thinking they know something, they think they know much more than they do.

I find the irony in this statement delicious.

I have the feeling that Kuhn has given us an insight into the nature of all sciences, all domains of knowledge,

Perhaps if you had zero experience with science or scientific progress, or had some and utterly lacked the ability to generalise. To be fair Kuhn put in some interesting if rather fluffy and speculative stuff about the sociology of the scientific establishment, but you haven't touched on that (cranks like to cite as support for their 'teh establishment is an evil conspiracy suppressing our work!' screeds).

and that if we were to plumb the depths of his insight we would comprehend a great deal more about science than we now do.

No, we'd comprehend a great deal more about science at the meta level if we had a complete formal model of how theories get built, tested, refined and applied. AI has been working on this since at least the mid-80s, where there were some specific 'model of scientific enquiry' symbolic AI systems built. It seems to be out of fashion at the moment though, probably because connectionist and emergentist designs do not lend themselves to this.

That is what I am trying to do. I am trying to understand this seminal concept that can be, I think, a means to understand the nature of knowledge.

I cannot see how you could gain anything useful form this. Even if it wasn't a badly posed question, there is no reason to presume a meaningful answer is possible at this level of abstraction, and indeed work in AI and neurology strongly suggests that any meaningful answer would have to be built up from a much lower level of abstraction.

There is apparently a good bit of controversy about Kuhn versus Popper. I think that these two men are searching a very different forest. I think that Popper is more of a natural sciences kind of guy and Kuhn is more of a world of knowledge kind of guy.

Popper looked at actual logic and the mechanics of hypothesis discrimination, trying to formalise the notion of falsifiability. This is actual useful work. Kuhn spouted philosobabble consisting largely of encoding the blatantly obvious (to scientists) into impressive-sounding buzzwords. So in that sense yes, Popper was much more like an actual scientist.

We normally use the word ‘science’, which has more than one meaning, to mean the ‘normal science’ that Kuhn speaks of.

From the repetition I guess you spliced two of your essays at this point. Or maybe you just like to repeat yourself in the hope that something you say will stick.

The paradigm defines the standards, principles and methods of the discipline. For example the laws of physics as developed by Newton are a paradigm. Einstein’s theory of relativity is a paradigm.

Base theories provide a framework and a toolkit to slot elaborations into and build theories of more specific phenomena. There are 'methods' in the sense of known techniques for doing analyses with these theories, and experimental techniques that tend to provide useful discrimination for derived theories, and perhaps standards of explanation which require linking new predictive theories into the overall framework, but that's it. Such 'paradigms' are not nearly so limiting as cranks like to believe; they represent painstakingly gained ground from the domain of the unknown, and it's not surprising that most individual attempts to galavant away from them fail horribly.

The sanctity of the ‘market place’ is a paradigm of economics.

That's not a paradigm, that's an ideology.

The college student of physics studies these paradigms of the science of physics to qualify for acceptance into that particular profession.

They learn all the best available theories and tools yes.

From these paradigms patterns of recognition and routines and algorithms for solutions have evolved and are memorized by all students who wish to join that particular profession. An algorithm is a step-by-step process for solving a problem.

Which is hard to develop and very valuable to learn when the time and brilliance needed to solve the problem from first principles is huge. Modern science would be impossible if everyone had to independently derive or even verify everything from first principles (not to boast but this is yet another AI advantage, verifying existing proofs/reasoning chains is a very fast operation for sensible AI architectures).

Science involves itself only in problems definable by paradigms and algorithms.

Yes, because those are the only ones you can usefully and objectively solve, scientists who forget this end up writing popsci books full of philosobabble.

Science is successful because it deals only with these mono-logical problems.

I have no idea what you mean by 'mono-logical' other than as an unconscious realisation that you are writing a tedious monologue.

These problems are circumscribed by the paradigm

The problems exist in reality independently of any methods used to tackle them. This is more crank 'your expertise is useless, my intuition is superior!' bullshit. Oh and here's another join in your cut&paste frenzy.

Normal science utilizes the ‘scientific method’ to solve problems. It is not apparent to the laity but science moves in incremental steps. Science seldom seeks and almost never produces major novelties.

Major novelties are rare because useful major novelties are extremely difficult and often unnecessary. If science was tossing out major novelties all the time it would have a much weaker claim on legitimacy, because it would imply a much weaker understanding of underlying reality.

Science solves puzzles.

Of course, because this is how real understanding aka predictive theories are obtained.

The “scientific method” forms the heart of scientific legitimacy.

Because it works. Massive progress in understanding the world and advancing technology only occurred once humanity hit on and widely adopted that method.

This method consists in assembling evidence, combining that evidence with assumptions, and analyzing the combination in a logical manner to develop a hypothesis.

A genuine revolution would be upgrading this process to use explicit probabilities and Bayesian reasoning, rather than boolean logic, orthodox (i.e. ad hoc) statistics and subjective definitions of 'overwhelming' evidence. Such an upgrade would merely speed things up, improve sensitivity and further improve objectivity though, it would not fundamentally change what science is capable of.

The validity of a hypothesis can only be determined by empirical evidence.

Untrue. If the hypothesis is found to be logically inconsistent, it is invalidated. If it is found to be logically inconsistent with another established hypothesis, then the evidence sets are pooled (essentially the weight of evidence needed to confirm increases and the conflicting hypothesis will be invalidated if it is).

This means that only measurable quantities can be used to legitimate a scientific hypothesis.

Yes, and? What's your point? Speculating about immeasurable quantities is pointless unless their existence is shown to be the simplest way to explain the behaviour of measurable quantities.

The second noteworthy characteristic, which follows from the first, is that scientific experimentation can only prove that a hypothesis has not yet been proven to be illegitimate. The empirical evidence derived from a test of a hypothesis proves, not that the hypothesis is true, but only that the hypothesis has not been proven to be untrue. Science does not deal in absolute truth but only in probability.

Which is as it should be and normally irrelevant in practice anyway, because very high probabilities might as well be 'true' and very low probabilities might as well be 'false' for most purposes. 'Absolute truth' is possible in the sense of mathematical proofs, but when dealing with the real world it is a reasoning flaw associated only with delusion systems such as religion. In probabilistic AI, theory probabilities hitting 1.0 is almost always a sign of a bug or high-level cognitive pathology.

Science offers no absolute truth. Science can speak with authority only in matters of fact. Any scientific theory can be shown to be invalid by one bit of evidence that proves that the theory cannot be true. No accumulation of evidence can ever prove any scientific theory to be absolutely true. Only theology presumes to offer absolute truth. This presumed truth of theology is a matter of faith but not a matter of fact.

Stating the obvious, but for once without the obscuring buzzwords.

Science does not perform experiments upon matters wherein the results are not expected.

Actually it does. Experimental effort is focused on phenomena that look interesting and discriminating between hypotheses, but in the early stages of any field of science people collect all the kind of data they can think of and conduct any and all experiments they think might turn up something interesting. A great deal of early chemistry can be characterised as 'mucking about in the lab until something interesting happens'. Even modern particle physics involves a lot of 'slam particles together and see what happens'; the LHC for example has various specific experiments but two large 'general' detectors as well. Neurophysiology at the moment consists largely of 'gather all data possible and make sense of it later' (as do full-sky surveys in astronomy) while psychology still has a lot of 'do experiments that sound novel, hope that something interesting happens'.

This is the nature of puzzle solving. The end is known in great detail and that which is in doubt is the various ways of verifying that anticipated end.

Nonsense. Science is not a succession of crosswords.

The prize winning puzzle solver is he or she with the cleverest efforts to reach the anticipated end result. Puzzles are problems that test the ingenuity and skill in puzzle solutions.

Oh no, science uses maths and logic for its solutions, how restricting!

The intrinsic value of the solution is virtually nil

This is where it becomes crystal clear that you are a fucking moron worshipping fake-revelation which is actually buzzword-clouded ignorance. Denial of the 'intrinsic value' of the vast body of scientific work that has given humans unparalleled understanding and control over the world around us is the worst kind of philosophy-wanking denial, and not coincidentally something you share with most religious nuts.

The logic of the paradigm insulates the professional group from problems that are unsolvable by that paradigm.

Bullshit. All the best scientists are clustered around the 'unsolvable' problems looking for a way to crack them, and win a Nobel prize in the process. Engineers try to stay away from these unknown areas and rightly so; most of the time you want something that predictably works. Engineers go beyond the realms of well-verified science only when absolutely necessary, as occurred frequently in aviation through the first half of the 20th century and as occurs frequently in AI right now.

One reason that science progresses so rapidly and with such assurance is because the logic of that paradigm allows the practitioners to work on problems that only their lack of ingenuity will keep them from solving.

WTF is this crap? 'Work on problems that only their lack of ingenuity will keep them from solving?' - but 'rapid progress' means they do solve them, so this is nonsensical. The notion that cranks have more 'ingenuity' than real scientists is moronic. 'Ingenuity' follows a bell curve much like other measures of intelligence, but it is certainly not concentrated in cranks, and ingenuity without an education in the field is worthless.

The natural sciences are primarily puzzle solving operations. The natural sciences are useful for logical thinking but the uses of scientific learning are that most judgments required in life are not puzzle like.

Idiocy. Making 'judgements' is the application of theories not their creation. You should be making a comparison with engineering not science.

Why is the “intrinsic value virtually nil” when we solve puzzles?

Because you're delusional.

Why has puzzle solving proven to be so successful for the normal sciences?

Because it's objective and usually breaks extremely hard complex problems down into manageable pieces.

Are sciences such as psychology, sociology, and psychoanalysis ‘normal sciences’?

The former two are protosciences (so proto it's largely a waste of time in the second case), the later is a branch of medicine not science.

[Stark]

Starglider, you must be *really* bored. I am glad however that I'm not the only one playing 'spot the cut'n'paste seams'.

He's so awful at actual discussion (as opposed to this retarded polemic) that his only response to someone trying to engage him in a discussion is 'I agree'.

[Starglider]

Starglider, you must be *really* bored.

I'm on another 'stare at some numbers scrolling past for several minutes, tweak parameters, repeat for a few hundred passes' project. The AI is such that I'm tweaking the parameters for the system that tweaks the parameters for the system that actually does the heavy data mining, but still, I might as well write stuff here in the intervals.

He's so awful at actual discussion (as opposed to this retarded polemic) that his only response to someone trying to engage him in a discussion is 'I agree'.

If he agrees with everyone who says 'your post is a mix of stating the obvious, blatant lies, things too stupid to be even convincingly wrong, and outright nonsense which appears to be English yet is not English', then what was the point of posting again? That said I hope he gets slapped with 'Retarded Spambot' and leaves, rather than being banned, just because that title is so perfectly descriptive of his behaviour.

[coberst]

Starglider says--"I have no idea what you mean by 'mono-logical' other than as an unconscious realisation that you are writing a tedious monologue."


I suspect that most of us are willing to agree that, broadly speaking, we have ‘fact knowledge’ and ‘relationship knowledge’. I would like to take this a step further by saying that I wish to claim that fact knowledge is mono-logical and relationship knowledge is multi-logical.

Mono-logical matters have one set of principles guiding their solution; this set of principles is often (if not always) the ‘scientific method’. Often these mono-logical matters have a paradigm--The natural sciences—normal sciences—as Thomas Kuhn labels it in “The Structure of Scientific Revolutions” move forward in a “successive transition from one paradigm to another”. A paradigm defines the theory, rules and standards of practice. “In the absence of a paradigm or some candidate for paradigm, all of the facts that could possible pertain to the development of a given science are likely to seem equally relevant.”

Multi-logical problems are different in kind from mono-logical matters.

Socratic dialogue is one technique for attempting to grapple with multi-logical problems; problems that are either not pattern like or that the pattern is too complex to ascertain. Most problems that we face in our daily life are such multi-logical in nature. Simple problems that occur daily in family life are examples. Each member of the family has a different point of view with differing needs and desires. Most of the problems we constantly face are not readily solved by mathematics because they are not pattern specific and are multi-logical.

Dialogue is a technique for mutual consideration of such problems wherein solutions grow in a dialectical manner. Through dialogue each individual brings his/her point of view to the fore by proposing solutions constructed around their specific view. All participants in the dialogue come at the solution from the logic of their views. The solution builds dialectically i.e. a thesis is developed and from this thesis and a contrasting antithesis is constructed a synthesis that takes into consideration both proposals. From this a new synthesis a new thesis is developed.

When we are dealing with mono-logical problems well circumscribed by algorithms the personal biases of the subject are of small concern. In multi-logical problems, without the advantage of paradigms and algorithms, the biases of the problem solvers become a serious source of error. One important task of dialogue is to illuminate these prejudices which may be quite subtle and often out of consciousness of the participant holding them.

Our society is very good while dealing with mono-logical problems. Our society is terrible while dealing with multi-logical problems.

Do you not think that we desperately need to understand CT, which attempts to help us understand how to think about multi-logical problems? Do you not think that it is worth while for every adult to get up off their ‘intellectual couch’ and teach themselves CT?

[Starglider]

'Mono-logical' versus 'multi-logical'; I see that you are finally developing into a full-fledged crank that makes up their own pointless buzzwords as well as latching onto existing ones. Perhaps someone else would like to have a go pointing out how broken this model is, if not I'll probably do it tonight.

[wolveraptor]

If you don't mind me asking, what is the practical upshot of all of this crap?

[Starglider]

If you don't mind me asking, what is the practical upshot of all of this crap?

No no no, you don't get it, 'practical answers and solutions' don't have intrinsic value, which is the only truly important thing.

[wolveraptor]

If you don't mind me asking, what is the practical upshot of all of this crap?

No no no, you don't get it, 'practical answers and solutions' don't have intrinsic value, which is the only truly important thing.

So I'm not stupid for not getting what the fuck he's saying? That's good. Because it seemed to my untrained brain to be a smelly load of irrelevant shit. No offense intended, dude, but what is the damn point of what you're saying?

[Starglider]

Because it seemed to my untrained brain to be a smelly load of irrelevant shit. No offense intended, dude, but what is the damn point of what you're saying?

I think it's something like 'scientists should <strike>switch off their targeting computers</strike> let go of rigid paradigms and <strike>use the force</strike> embrace the notion of conscillience'. Or maybe 'scientists don't think 'out of the box' enough and would discover more things of 'intrinsic value' if they structured their faculties along the lines of a new age cult'. So yeah, bullshit.

[coberst]

If you don't mind me asking, what is the practical upshot of all of this crap?

No no no, you don't get it, 'practical answers and solutions' don't have intrinsic value, which is the only truly important thing.

So I'm not stupid for not getting what the fuck he's saying? That's good. Because it seemed to my untrained brain to be a smelly load of irrelevant shit. No offense intended, dude, but what is the damn point of what you're saying?

I think that most people have little comprehension of what science is about. This is my attempt to illuminate that subject. These matters are complex and require time and effort to fully comprehend. These are not matters to be learned through social osmosis, they require attention and effort.

[Eris]

@wolveraptor: What's the practical upshot of any purely theoretical debate? It's hard to say until you're finished. Either nothing at all such as in most of Continental Philosophy, or you predict the existence of the positron years before we spot one, as in Dirac's quasi-famous oopsie with his pure mathematical derivations in QED. I'm leaning towards the former case in this instance, though.

@Starglider: I'm with you on the Retarded Spambot thing. Coberst's posts have been so unfathomably obtuse it leaves me kind of flabbergasted. I'm torn on whether I want him to leave or not. My misanthropy and malice want him to stick around so I can revel in people deconstructing him, but he's just so exasperating I think I may just have to cry if it continues much longer. C'est la vie.

As far as mono- and multi-logical goes... what in the name of kitten-strangling are you talking about? You put the terms in mention quotes, coberst, but then declined to define them. I think by the rules of analytical philosophical debate I'm allowed to beat you with a stick until you provide explanations of your terminology. You have this bizarre claim about it relating to patterns, but I can't tell how that might lead to the need for an entire different logic.

You also betray an incomplete knowledge of the subject by invoking the Socratic method. The Socratic method is for the most part nothing more than giving your opponent enough rope to hang himself, then demonstrating conclusively how he's just contradicted himself. Nothing mystical or different about it - just a different style of argument.

You then drift off into Hegelian territory with that whole thesis, antithesis, synthesis bit with the family dilemmas, but again this doesn't require a whole new logic. That problems with multiple agents require some deftness in working out is not to say that we're using a whole new system of logic to construct our arguments. In fact it's one of the remarkable facts about logic that the same moves that are made in mathematics can also be applied in other areas.

My best guess is that you're trying to go after a distiction between practical reasoning and formal reasoning, but there just isn't a distinction there, save that practical reasoning tends to be sloppier and employ more shortcuts and rules of thumb. There are some interesting dilemmas and issues in the analysis of practical reasoning such as the prisoner's dilemma in game theory that put into question what reason is and how it should be applied, but you haven't brought up these cases, just sort of hand-waved around a bit.

I am also not willing to grant that there's "fact knowledge" and "relationship knowledge" until I know what the hell they're supposed to be. Frankly, what knowledge is to begin with is shaky enough territory, but even that aside we can work with fudge definitions to show you wrong.

Let's say that we go with something like the standard definition: to have knowledge someone must have a justified true belief. Leaving aside what a belief is and what makes it justified, let's just look at what it is for a proposition to be true. Fudging again, we'll pull a Tarskian-like definition (something that seems reasonable but not iron-clad): the sentence 'x is y' is true if and only if the predicate y holds of x, and is false otherwise. So 'Schnee ist weiß' is true if and only if the predicate is white holds of snow, i.e. if and only if snow is white. (This proposition happens to be false, as anyone visiting NYC can tell you.)

What does this amount to? Well, it means that all knowledge is consequently "fact knowledge," i.e. all knowledge has a factual component. Even relationships can be described as facts. Take the sentence 'Eris is being a bitch to coberst.' Not only does it describe a relationship, but there's a fact of the matter about whether I am or not.

You're hand-waving here without any real knowledge of the subject material, and it's showing. Badly. I can't even construct a coherent and pretty reply, since there's nothing coherent to respond to, just a series of loosely related or even unrelated snippets and buzzwords.

[Eris]

So I'm not stupid for not getting what the fuck he's saying? That's good. Because it seemed to my untrained brain to be a smelly load of irrelevant shit. No offense intended, dude, but what is the damn point of what you're saying?

Heh, not at all. It actually is a bit more than a smelly load of irrelevant shit, though. To the best of my bachelor's level ability, it looks like someone who skimmed some pop philosophy texts for buzzwords and strung them together in an attempt to look deep, or something. Think of him something like a creationist, since the tactics are much the same. They hunt for science buzzwords and use them in debates with about the same level of understanding as coberst is demonstrating.

I think that most people have little comprehension of what science is about. This is my attempt to illuminate that subject. These matters are complex and require time and effort to fully comprehend. These are not matters to be learned through social osmosis, they require attention and effort.

Well, I hate to admit it, but I'm going to have to agree. Most people don't have much of an idea what science is about in any substantive manner. On the other hand, coberst's ramblings aren't going to be enlightening anyone any time soon.

[Spoonist]

Isn't this, like, complete bollocks?

'Bollocks' is not in my dictionary? Is this an English word?

It's alive!!!!

Bollocks are the dangly bits between some of our legs (meaning the real men here.)

->Coberst
You know this thing that everyone is talking about, you know the web, well I have heard some pretty darn strange stories that one can do searches on it to find answers. I'm guessing that it is some sort of magic or other, so lets try it together, repeat after me:
Abracadabra...
Well that worked so go we have to try it again:
Bibbadi Boddidi Boo
Wow that worked like a charm.

[TithonusSyndrome]

I saw Kuhn's name in the first sentence and I knew that coberst hadn't reformed one bit. I don't know why anyone else even bothered to read on, that's like being a dinosaur in Jurassic Park and not figuring out that the fences will shock you despite repeated trials.

[Mobiboros]

Since Starglider and others have done an amazing and amusing job of deconstructing teh rest of your arguments I'd like to provide a response only to this section:

... psychology,

As a psych major I'll say this. Parts of psychology are science, but large swaths are utter shite. On par with any existential or solipsistic BS you could come up with. It masquerades as "science" in a lot of cases because it uses the suffice "ology". But then again so does Frenology which is often about as accurate as some of psychology.

sociology,

Not science yet. When they actually lay down clearly what the actual point of what they are doing is, then maybe. But for now it would be better termed as "The Philosophy of Social and Group Interactions".

psychoanalysis

Dude, psychoanalysis is a part of psychology. The Freudian part. Granted people have tried to update it but a lot of it is still just Freudian crap that people won't let go of. This largely falls into the "Shite" part of psychology.

[CaptHawkeye]

The entire time Cobert has been here i've getting the feeling he's merely advertising in some kind of subliminal manner. I don't think he's actually here to talk, I think he's here just to sell shit.

[Darth Wong]

When coberst says "multi-logical", that's just his own made-up buzzword for "illogical".

PS. If coberst actually had scientific knowledge, he would have provided concrete examples to back up his ramblings by now. But he never does that, does he? He's like the person who reads the abstracts of scientific papers and then thinks he understands the paper. Or he reads the liner comments on a book and acts as though he's read the book.

[Hillary]

Science does not perform experiments upon matters wherein the results are not expected. This is the nature of puzzle solving. The end is known in great detail and that which is in doubt is the various ways of verifying that anticipated end.

Isn't this, like, complete bollocks?

'Bollocks' is not in my dictionary? Is this an English word?

Perhaps "testicles" may be in your dictionary. Along with "pretentious", "long-winded" and "moron".