Changes

== History ==  

== History ==  

Postmodern doubts about the objectivity and neutrality of science arose in the mid-1900s from Michael Polanyi’s ''Personal Knowledge'' and Thomas Kuhn’s ''The Structure of Scientific Revolution''. Kuhn points out that science is not merely a progressive and incremental discipline that studies and records facts. So-called facts can be understood and interpreted in a variety of ways depending on the worldview assumptions of the scientist. Kuhn further asserts that scientific [[theory|theories]] are often not discarded due to being proven wrong, but rather older theories tend to die out along with their proponents.{{#tag:ref|cf."An important scientific innovation rarely makes its way by gradually winning over and converting its opponents: it rarely happens that Saul becomes Paul. What does happen is that its opponents gradually die out and that the growing generation is familiarized with the idea from the beginning." [[Max Planck]], The Philosophy of Physics<ref>{{cite book|title=The philosophy of physics|author=Max Planck|publisher=W.W. Norton & Company, inc.|year=1936|page=97|url=http://books.google.com/books?ei=7y4zUbPQCe_64QS80IDwAQ&id=WpTvAAAAMAAJ&dq=Max+Planck%2C+The+Philosophy+of+Physics&q=converting#search_anchor}}</ref>|group=note}} Then the new and creative theories attract the attention of younger scientists who, in turn, promote their theories over the older ones. From this perspective, a current scientific theory is just a momentary ''current theory'' that will be replaced by another ''current theory'' in the future. For that reason, postmodernists held that science cannot tell us what is real, only what scientists believe to be the case at that particular period in history of humankind.<ref name="AllAboutWorldview"/>

Postmodern doubts about the objectivity and neutrality of science arose in the mid-1900s from Michael Polanyi’s ''Personal Knowledge'' and Thomas Kuhn’s ''The Structure of Scientific Revolution''. Kuhn points out that science is not merely a progressive and incremental discipline that studies and records facts. So-called facts can be understood and interpreted in a variety of ways depending on the worldview assumptions of the scientist. Kuhn further asserts that scientific [[theory|theories]] are often not discarded due to being proven wrong, but rather older theories tend to die out along with their proponents.{{#tag:ref|cf."An important scientific innovation rarely makes its way by gradually winning over and converting its opponents: it rarely happens that Saul becomes Paul. What does happen is that its opponents gradually die out and that the growing generation is familiarized with the idea from the beginning." [[Max Planck]], The Philosophy of Physics<ref>{{cite book|title=The philosophy of physics|author=Max Planck|publisher=W.W. Norton & Company, inc.|year=1936|pages=97|url=http://books.google.com/books?ei=7y4zUbPQCe_64QS80IDwAQ&id=WpTvAAAAMAAJ&dq=Max+Planck%2C+The+Philosophy+of+Physics&q=converting#search_anchor}}</ref>|group=note}} Then the new and creative theories attract the attention of younger scientists who, in turn, promote their theories over the older ones. From this perspective, a current scientific theory is just a momentary ''current theory'' that will be replaced by another ''current theory'' in the future. For that reason, postmodernists held that science cannot tell us what is real, only what scientists believe to be the case at that particular period in history of humankind.<ref name="AllAboutWorldview"/>

== Notable examples ==

== Notable examples ==

*In the postmodern science, the traditional [[scientific method]] demanding from scientists to provide the [[scientific evidence]] for their [[hypothesis]] and conduct [[experiment]]s was replaced by [[logic of possibility]]. This [[paradigm]] shift in [[science]] can be demonstrated at a representative example, the description of research by [[Alan Guth]], where a claim is made about tests being performed in a '' 'hypothetical laboratory' ''<ref>{{cite web|title=Faculty Directory: Alan Guth, Victor F. Weisskopf Professor of Physics|publisher=Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Department of Physics|accessdate=03.03.2013|url=http://web.mit.edu/physics/people/faculty/guth_alan.html|quote=}}</ref>: <blockquote>''"Working with Prof. Edward Farhi and others, Guth has explored the question of whether it is in principle possible to ignite inflation in a hypothetical laboratory, thereby creating a new universe. The answer is a definite maybe. They showed that it cannot be done classically, but with quantum tunneling it might be theoretically possible.{{#tag:ref|cf."Physical scientists like [[Newton]] are not content to say that it ''may'' be so, and then build up theories based on bare possibilites."<ref>{{cite book |title=Darwin and his critics: the reception of Darwin's theory of evolution by the scientific community|author=David L. Hull|publisher=Harvard University Press|year=1973|page=275|url=http://books.google.com/books?ei=jkUzUb-xK4Ol4gS27IGYAQ&id=juTaAAAAMAAJ&dq=Hull+Darwin+and+his+critics&q=verb#search_anchor}}</ref>|group=note}} The new universe, if it can be created, would not endanger our own universe. Instead it would slip through a wormhole and rapidly disconnect completely."</blockquote>'' Postmodern science does not lead to resolution of scientific questions but leaves them undecided by applying terms like '' 'a definite maybe' ''{{#tag:ref|cf."If one wishes to obtain a definite answer from Nature one must attack the question from a more general and less selfish point of view." [[Max Planck]]<ref>{{cite book |title=Science and Sanity: An Introduction to Non-Aristotelian Systems and General Semantics|author=Alfred Korzybski|publisher=Institute of General Semantics|year=1995|page=415|isbn=978-0937298015|url=http://www.amazon.co.uk/Science-Sanity-Introduction-Non-Aristotelian-Semantics/dp/0937298018}}</ref>|group=note}}. Consequently, the scientific discoveries are being replaced by the beliefs affected by worldview of scientist which are then effectively promulgated as [[Creed|statements of faith]] or scientific [[myth]] calling for public acceptance.

*In the postmodern science, the traditional [[scientific method]] demanding from scientists to provide the [[scientific evidence]] for their [[hypothesis]] and conduct [[experiment]]s was replaced by [[logic of possibility]]. This [[paradigm]] shift in [[science]] can be demonstrated at a representative example, the description of research by [[Alan Guth]], where a claim is made about tests being performed in a '' 'hypothetical laboratory' ''<ref>{{cite web|title=Faculty Directory: Alan Guth, Victor F. Weisskopf Professor of Physics|publisher=Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Department of Physics|accessdate=03.03.2013|url=http://web.mit.edu/physics/people/faculty/guth_alan.html|quote=}}</ref>: <blockquote>''"Working with Prof. Edward Farhi and others, Guth has explored the question of whether it is in principle possible to ignite inflation in a hypothetical laboratory, thereby creating a new universe. The answer is a definite maybe. They showed that it cannot be done classically, but with quantum tunneling it might be theoretically possible.{{#tag:ref|cf."Physical scientists like [[Newton]] are not content to say that it ''may'' be so, and then build up theories based on bare possibilites."<ref>{{cite book |title=Darwin and his critics: the reception of Darwin's theory of evolution by the scientific community|author=David L. Hull|publisher=Harvard University Press|year=1973|pages=275|url=http://books.google.com/books?ei=jkUzUb-xK4Ol4gS27IGYAQ&id=juTaAAAAMAAJ&dq=Hull+Darwin+and+his+critics&q=verb#search_anchor}}</ref>|group=note}} The new universe, if it can be created, would not endanger our own universe. Instead it would slip through a wormhole and rapidly disconnect completely."</blockquote>'' Postmodern science does not lead to resolution of scientific questions but leaves them undecided by applying terms like '' 'a definite maybe' ''{{#tag:ref|cf."If one wishes to obtain a definite answer from Nature one must attack the question from a more general and less selfish point of view." [[Max Planck]]<ref>{{cite book |title=Science and Sanity: An Introduction to Non-Aristotelian Systems and General Semantics|author=Alfred Korzybski|publisher=Institute of General Semantics|year=1995|pages=415|isbn=978-0937298015|url=http://www.amazon.co.uk/Science-Sanity-Introduction-Non-Aristotelian-Semantics/dp/0937298018}}</ref>|group=note}}. Consequently, the scientific discoveries are being replaced by the beliefs affected by worldview of scientist which are then effectively promulgated as [[Creed|statements of faith]] or scientific [[myth]] calling for public acceptance.

*Another example demonstrating the traits of Postmodern science can be given from interview with Joseph Silk, Savilian Professor of [[Astronomy]] at [[University of Oxford]]<ref name="ESA">{{cite web

*Another example demonstrating the traits of Postmodern science can be given from interview with Joseph Silk, Savilian Professor of [[Astronomy]] at [[University of Oxford]]<ref name="ESA">{{cite web