CCL: What does Hoffmann's quote mean to the Kuhn dilemma?

 Sent to CCL by: Sengen Sun [sengensun_-_yahoo.com]
 As the Secretary of International Society for the
 Philosophy of Chemistry, Dr. Akeroyd does not
 recognize the Kuhn dilemma - a difficulty of a
 theoretical paradigm shift driven by a younger
 scientist against a well- established scientific
 giant.
 -
 But to me, the Kuhn dilemma is just a common sense.
 -
 It is true that the science has been progressing
 steadily for the past hundreds of years. You can give
 as many examples as you want. It is also true
 THEORETICALLY that the whole society does want the
 theoretical paradigm shifts - scientific revolutions.
 -
 But what really made Kuhn famous was his thesis that
 concisely describes a common sense and a REALITY.
 -
 I'd like to invite Dr. Akeroyd, the Secretary of ISFC
 to address the reality shown by Hoffmann's poem
 published in FOCH (Foundations of Chemistry 6:11,
 2004). Please tell me any meaningful points of that
 poem in terms of philosophy and science. Why should
 his poem be published by FOCH?
 -
 Every one can look at a quote in the poem:
 -
 "The other day I met a friend who's run into the same
 wild terrain. Starting out from a hill nearby, he
 found a different way. But I told you there was only
 one."
 -
 I don't know the difference between "resist" and
 "suppress". But at least, this quote means to me that
 Hoffmann does not welcome and is not willing to let
 his friend give a try for a possible and maybe better
 way, because he thinks that he has the ultimate and
 eternal solution.
 -
 For decades, Hoffmann has been the most powerful Nobel
 Laureate ever in the scientific history that appeals
 to a huge crowd and the absolute majority of the
 community. In fact, this crowd applaud wherever and
 whenever he speaks while they absolutely have no idea
 what he really means.
 -
 Further, there is another FOCH article that use a
 title of CRITIQUE to PRAISE everything in favor of
 their powerful authority. But I don't see an article
 of the opposite.
 -
 My arguments that orbital interactions are not
 chemical reaction mechanisms were rejected by journals
 including FOCH. I am not convinced that I was treated
 fairly. The rejection is not a big deal to me. The big
 deal is what chemical reaction mechanisms are about.
 Without this knowledge, it is not possible to develop
 better computational tools to design reliable chemical
 reaction protocols.
 -
 Don't these particular incidences mean the Kuhn
 dilemma in the reality of theoretical chemistry?
 -
 Welcome any comments!
 -
 Sengen
 -
 --- PHILCHEM automatic digest system
 <LISTSERV]~[LISTSERV.SC.EDU> wrote:
 > Date:     Fri, 11 May 2007 16:00:01 -0400
 > From:     PHILCHEM automatic digest system
 > <LISTSERV]~[LISTSERV.SC.EDU>
 > Subject: PHILCHEM Digest - 10 May 2007 to 11 May
 > 2007 (#2007-16)
 > To:       PHILCHEM]~[LISTSERV.SC.EDU
 >
 > There is 1 message totalling 313 lines in this
 > issue.
 >
 > Topics of the day:
 >
 >   1. The Kuhn dilemma and its solution
 > > Date:    Fri, 11 May 2007 13:03:38 +0100
 > From:    Michael Akeroyd
 > <m.akeroyd]~[BRADFORDCOLLEGE.AC.UK>
 > Subject: Re: The Kuhn dilemma and its solution
 >
 > I think this dilemma was solved earlier than 1987
 > and it was discussed by both Popper and Feyerabend.
 >
 > Popper stated that older scientists had a duty to
 > resist (but not suppress) new ideas as their
 > constructive criticism  would weed out any
 > weaknesses in the new idea's formulation. In his
 > view uncritical acceptance of new ideas is just as
 > unscientific as uncritical rejection of new ideas.
 >
 > Peter Mitchell received the Nobel Prize in 1978 for
 > his proton motive hypothesis several years before
 > empirical corroboration of his "Q-cycle" mechanism.
 > The final piece of the jigsaw in his hypothesis was
 > provided by his opponents around 1981, not from
 > Mitchell's private laboratory.
 >
 > I think Kuhn's thesis has more application to
 > chemical education. In most developed countries we
 > are training school children for a career 90% have
 > no intention of following and the remaining 10%
 > (i.e. possible potential scientists) are being
 > trained for an analytical chemistry paradigm that is
 > inappropriate for the multi-disciplinary mode of
 > thinking that will be required for the 21st century.
 >
 > I expand on this theme in the current issue of
 > JOURNAL OF CHEMICAL EDUCATION.
 >
 > Michael Akeroyd
 >
 > Secretary, International Society for the Philosophy
 > of Chemistry
 >
 >
 ____________________________________________________________________________________
 Bored stiff? Loosen up...
 Download and play hundreds of games for free on Yahoo! Games.
 http://games.yahoo.com/games/front