CCL: Thomas Kuhn Paradigm Shift Award

 Sent to CCL by: "Carlos Simmerling" [carlos.simmerling**gmail.com]
 Anthony Nicholls of OpenEye created and sponsors these awards for ACS.
 He doesn't use CCL mail so I passed the original message to him, here
 is his reply:
 ---------- Forwarded message ----------
 > From: Anthony Nicholls <anthony.,+,.eyesopen.com>
 The comments by Sengun Sun reflect one of the main criticisms of
 Kuhn's work at the time it was first published. It was easy to see the
 shift in Newton-Einstein or Classical-Quantum  as paradigm shifts but
 since these only happen every fifty years or so, what use is it? I
 believe the standard response is that Kuhn's insight into the
 difficulties new ideas face is exemplified by the "Epoch-making"
 changes in physics and other branches of Natural Science, but is
 widespread in humbler forms. If Sun had attended any of the Kuhn
 Symposia he would have heard my introduction wherein I give many
 examples of such and in particular champion the "Kuhn-lite"
 description by the great British geneticist J. B. S. Haldane (J.
 Genetics #58, 1963, p 464):
 Four stages of acceptance of a scientific theory:
 i) It is worthless nonsense.
 ii) This is an interesting, but perverse, point of view.
 iii) It is true, but quite unimportant.
 iv) I always said so.
 Every time I have given this introduction I have seen heads nod in
 rueful acknowledgement because most of us who have had original ideas
 have experienced just this process. We do not have to be suggesting
 the Earth revolve around the Sun or species arise from the fitness of
 inherited traits to know that new ideas always have a hard time. That
 is what the symposium is about.
 In defense of the "technical changes" that have won in previous years,
 the concept that large scale screening is an inefficient use of pharma
 resources (Bayly, 2006) is an excellent example of an idea weighing in
 against political correctness Sun states is a necessary characteristic
 of a paradigm shift. The concept of the importance of confidence
 limits in the field of computational chemistry (Debe, 2008) is a
 battle still being waged of immense importance, I believe, to the
 entire field. The degree to which it is not currently appreciated is
 again a necessary, if not sufficient characteristic.
 While neither may be the "Epoch-making" changes Sun is looking for,
 neither is Bader's work- by the strict definitions of a Kuhn Paradigm
 shift he suggests we ought to use. Kuhn's work arose from his
 reflections on his difficulties in comprehending how the pre-classical
 greats, for instance Aristotle, could have held views we now would
 think are ridiculous. It is this alteration in mindset that is almost
 impossible to reverse that is the hallmark of the 'Shift'. While
 Bader's work is interesting, clever, rigorous and "Haldane", it has
 not become a shift - there are plenty of other ways of considering
 bonds that are used everyday, i.e. Bader has not, nor may ever, become
 a de facto standard. Something like DFT, however, has undergone such a
 shift. These days many would find it inconceivable to not use DFT for
 small molecule calculations, while this view would have ridiculed 20
 years ago. This is not to put down Bader, because for me his work is
 an example of a paradigm shift, but not of the type Sun believes
 defines the concept.
 Finally, while I accept that the concept of 'judging' a paradigm shift
 is hard, perhaps even logically tenuous, I would invite him to attend
 a symposium and see for himself. The last event, in addition to Debe's
 excellent talk on how to judge the value of predictions, featured a
 talk on a truly new way to include polarization in molecular
 mechanics, a way to account for correlations in large-scale
 simulations, and a proposal that chemistry as we know can is
 hopelessly hind-bound. I can not remember a better session at the ACS,
 or for that matter any other meeting. As with any good scientific
 idea, ultimate validity is measured by whether it is found useful. In
 my view, the Thomas Kuhn Paradigm Shift Award has already passed that
 test.
 Anthony Nicholls
 On Tue, Oct 7, 2008 at 11:51 AM, DIEGOI GOMEZ darkego21%a%yahoo.com
 <owner-chemistry.,+,.ccl.net> wrote:
 > Hi Sengen.
 >
 > (My english is bad, but I will do my best.  I apologize for any mistake)
 >
 > I found really interesting your concern about the "paradigm
 shift" and its
 > identification, so I am going to adventure to tell something.
 >
 > Firstly, I don't remember exactly all the theory about epistemology and the
 > parents of the differents positions;  but I have present some additional
 > concepts like "universal validity", "conceptual
 disequilibrium", "conceptual
 > change", "falsibility" and many others... where each one
 could represent an
 > position to evaluate the incidence of new theories and hypothesis or new
 > knowledge on the society and on the individual.
 >
 > Secondly, I think that is important to rescue the idea that the scientific
 > knowledge (in general, the science) is not something that is in the matter
 > or into the object of study, but the scientific knowledge is a social
 > contruction where exist many positions.
 >
 > Since the above, I think that if one desire to give a valuation of the
 > importance or the trancendence of a new theory, one would have to take
 > different positions and to interpret the conceptual phenomena from this.
 > (and should be taken into account too the way through which the object or
 > the real phenomena is evaluated an the objective of the evaluation. the
 > way in which a solid or crystal system is evaluated by a Physicist and by a
 > Chemist, for example).  So, as we cannot do that (to take different
 > positions or in other words, we have a "limited ability to
 judge") we have
 > to wait till scientific society know, understand, use and apply the new
 > theory or new concept from its particular positions (what induce a new
 > independent variable, the time, and this do our discution a relative
 > problem).
 >
 > Additionally, I think that to live in a "highly civilized
 society" is
 > synonymous of better ways to exchange knowledge and so synonymous of highly
 > knowledge state (but this is relative to our current knowledge state) and
 > this doesn`t affect the need  (relative to each scientist) to apply the new
 > theory in a particular interpretation process.
 >
 > Well, no more...
 >
 > that is my humble opinion, I am not an expert in science or in
 epistemology,
 > but the issue is interesting for me.
 >
 > Thanks
 >
 >
 > Diego Armando Gómez Hernández.
 >
 >
 >
 > ----- Original Message ----
 > From: Sengen Sun sengensun*o*yahoo.com <owner-chemistry:+:ccl.net>
 > To: "Gomez, Diego Armando " <darkego21:+:yahoo.com>
 > Sent: Monday, October 6, 2008 10:27:20 PM
 > Subject: CCL: Thomas Kuhn Paradigm Shift Award
 >
 >
 > Sent to CCL by: Sengen Sun [sengensun(~)yahoo.com]
 > I am still concerned with the AWARD that may cause philosophical
 > confusion in this human society.
 >
 > According to Kuhn, a truly theoretical paradigm shift is often
 > a long-term struggle, induces confrontation, and eventually
 > changes our very fundamental view how human understands the nature.
 >
 > I'd like to give an example what a Kuhn paradigm shift is really
 > about to me. During my graduate study for my PhD degree at
 > McMaster University from 1989-1994, I found that Professor
 > Richard Bader had been struggling for many years for his
 > revolutionary philosophy about the role of electron density
 > in atoms and molecules. I did not work directly with Bader
 > but was a close spectator. Nowadays, Bader's theory is quite
 > popular. But I don't think the resistance is over until his
 > work is awarded what it really deserves.
 >
 > This case of Kuhn's paradigm shift leads me to think that
 > even in our highly civilized society today, it is very
 > difficult to adjust our minds to accept a fundamental revolution
 > of scientific theory. At least, there are two reasons for this
 > difficulty. One is our limited ability to judge no matter what
 > kind of experts we are; The other is the political correctness as
 > recognized by Kuhn. As soon as human is not free from these two
 > factors, awarding Kuhn paradigm shift is likely just a joke.
 >
 > Also imagine we are in an era when Kuhn paradigm shift happens
 > every year! And recognized every year! After 50 years, we will
 > have a big list. Is that really what Kuhn meant about theoretical
 > paradigm shift?
 >
 > The awarded works under this AWARD in the past are excellent works,
 > but no more than some technical changes, improvements or modifications in
 > a field. They do change things in a particular field, even very
 > significantly. To me, it is exaggerated and philosophically
 > misleading to use the words "Kuhn paradigm shift". They should
 > be awarded in many other ways.
 >
 > How could you tell the difference between normal scientific progress and
 > truly a revolution?
 >
 > Thanks for attention and welcome any comments.
 >
 > Sengen
 >
 >>
 >>
 >>
 >>
 >> From: "carlos simmerling" <carlos.simmerling ~
 gmail.com>
 > Subject: CCL: Thomas Kuhn Paradigm Shift Award symposium at Spring ACS
 > meeting
 > Date: Wed, 1 Oct 2008 15:44:40 -0400
 >
 >
 --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
 >
 > Sent to CCL by: "carlos  simmerling"
 [carlos.simmerling:-:gmail.com]
 > Please forward this announcement of an award symposium to be held in the
 > COMP
 > division at the Spring ACS national meeting in Salt lake City.
 > The Thomas Kuhn Paradigm Shift Award is given each year to the talk that
 > most
 > captures the spirit of Kuhn's writings, exemplified in his landmark book,
 > "The Structure of Scientific Revolutions". The symposium at each
 > Spring ACS is open to all and attempts to attract those whose work has the
 > potential to change the way we think about an aspect of science. Kuhn's
 > words
 > for this, a "Paradigm Shift", have been much over used and as
 such can
 > be an intimidating standard to approach, but the intent is for talks that
 > represent a fresh way of looking at an aspect of our field. As an example,
 > the
 > 2006 winner, Christopher Bayly of Merck-Frosst, proposed that focused
 > screening
 > was a more efficient path to drug discovery than high throughput screening
 > and
 > in 2008 Derek Debe of Abbott Laboratories presented the case for knowing
 > confidence intervals in molecular modeling. Talks are usually within the
 > computational sphere. They are judged on novelty, potential impact and
 > quality
 > of presentation by a panel of independent scientists with extensive
 > computational experience. It is hoped the Award, which carries a stipend of
 > one
 > thousand dollars, can provide a platform to researchers extending a mirror
 > to
 > our field and questioning the scientific status quo.
 > Abstracts can be submitted on the OASYS web site (oasys.acs.org) and four
 > will
 > be selected for 40 minute presentations to take place during a half-day
 > symposium at the national meeting.  Abstracts not selected for the
 symposium
 > competition can be moved into consideration for the general symposia (which
 > are
 > always well attended!) if desired.
 > More information on awards offered by the ACS COMP division can be found on
 > the
 > web site at http://www.acscomp.org/Awards/index.html
 >
 >
 >
 > -= This is automatically added to each message by the mailing script =->
 the strange characters on the top line to the :+: sign. You can also>
 > E-mail to subscribers: CHEMISTRY:+:ccl.net or use:>
 > E-mail to administrators: CHEMISTRY-REQUEST:+:ccl.net or use>
 >
 >
 >