When Popper and Kuhn debated on the Moon Landing...
“It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it…”
- Aristotle
Did the 1969 moon landing really happen? I recently indulged (again) in one of my favorite conspiracy theories with a friend. I introduced her to the idea and supportive evidence such as the challenges associated with the efficiency and weight of the Apollo rocket, the duct-taped flimsy aluminum-clad lunar module's ability to withstand the extreme swings in temperature (-280F to +260F) on the moon, and the presence of high-radiation Van Allen belts, coupled with Stanley Kubrick’s cinematography prowess in the 60s that allowed him to pull off and shoot a fake landing for the television. I was amazed and pleased with her mind’s capacity and intelligence to even entertain these ideas that challenged and possibly even shook the foundations of her knowledge of the world. I doubt Popper would have been that accommodating. Rather, he would have been appalled instead – “…we have had several foundational proofs with the leading scientists in the world being involved and verifying it. It is syntactically irrefutable. And we also observed it live on TV…”.
Lakatos' (1968) discussion of Popper’s Naïve Falsification, reminded me of the moon landing discussion and the dogmatism and mob psychology of the moon-landing believers against the “conspiracy theorists” that I have encountered before. For the sake of discussion of the readings and the theories of Popper, Kuhn, and Lakatos, let us assume that there are several pieces of evidence - the Van Allen belts, technological anomalies, and new revelations made by the Russian and Chinese space programs and exposure of old US Government cover-up files by Edward Snowden.
...the duct-taped flimsy aluminum-clad lunar module's ability to withstand the extreme swings in temperature (-280F to +260F) on the moon...
In Kuhn’s view, the newfound evidence would represent anomalies that would challenge the existing paradigm accepting the moon landing. The anomalies or ‘puzzles’ would initially face resistance from the scientific community. As these anomalies accumulate, the existing paradigm would not be able to accommodate them, resulting in a ‘crisis’ and leading to the overthrow of the paradigm - a paradigm shift in the understanding of space history and Government conspiracies and propaganda. In Lakatos’ view, the new evidence would challenge the very core of the research program supporting the authenticity of the moon landing within the framework of his Methodology of Scientific Research Program (MSRP). As Lakatos explains the core of a research program can be shielded by a protective belt. If the newly found pieces of evidence are found to be conclusive and could predict new facts, it could lead to a new research program. Thus, in this hypothetical scenario of new credible pieces of evidence against the moon landings (from 1969 to 1972), the established understanding of space history and more specifically the moon landing would be challenged. For Popper, this would require a new critical examination and falsification. For Kuhn, this crisis could lead to a paradigm shift, while for Lakatos, it would lead to testing the existing research program.
In Kuhn’s view, the newfound evidence would represent anomalies that would challenge the existing paradigm accepting the moon landing.
The seminal work by Kuhn (1962) is a good reading primarily on Anti-Foundationalism, following the earlier prescribed readings on Popper within Foundationalism. I am much more aligned with Kuhn’s notion of considering the truth or knowledge in the realm of the prevailing paradigm. The moon-landing example also showcased three of his key concepts - paradigm shift, scientific revolutions or a revolutionary change in perspective, and incommensurability or distinctiveness between the paradigms.
Lakatos’ (1968) reconciliation of Popper and Kuhn also bridges Foundationalism and Anti-Foundationalism. I am particularly in agreement with his idea of continuity and how scientific knowledge is a progression of research programs. It is in alignment with my business experiences that entailed a series of progressive knowledge creation when building a new venture or a product, where one went through several iterations driven by market feedback challenging initial paradigms or initial business assumptions of what constituted the "right" business model or the right product use-case.
Milton Friedman’s (1953) seminal paper on positive economics discusses some of the ideas of Popper and Kuhn in a different domain - economics. I am particularly in alignment with his emphasis on the utility of the model rather than the realism of its underlying assumptions, particularly its predictive ability. For example, in the case of disproving the moon landings, the newfound pieces of evidence or challenges such as the Van Allen belts could help initiate the development of new technologies to address them for future real moon landings. Similarly, the new evidence could help drive stricter regulations against any future Governments trying to falsify information or misinform their citizens.
The Urry (1992) article is interesting as a possible metaphorical representation of constructivist aspects within anti-foundationalism - how tourists rely on and “gaze” at a tourist spot based on socially or culturally constructed forms of gazes such as romantic or spectatorial. It is also reminiscent of blindly accepting the truth of what one reads in the newspapers or how the population’s perception of the truth was based on what was shown on that technological marvel of 1969 – the “live” television, even though it could have easily been just a replay of a film shot by Kubrick.
_____
References
Friedman, M. 1953. The Methodology of Positive Economics. From: Essays in Positive Economics. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Kuhn, 1962. The Structure of Scientific Revolutions Epistemology and Framing Research Programs
Lakatos, Imre. 1968. Criticism and the Methodology of Scientific Research Programmes. Meeting of the Aristotelian Society at 21, Bedford Square, London (on Monday, 28th October)
Mackenzie, D. and Millo, Y. 2003. Constructing a Market, Performing Theory: The Historical Sociology of a Financial Derivatives Exchange. American Journal of Sociology, 109 (1):107–45
Urry, John. 1992. The Tourist Gaze Revisited. American Behavioral Scientist, 36 (2): 172-186
MANAGEMENT MUSINGS
The above is one of the essays on my musings on Management Science and Theory (“Management Musings”), with reflections on some of the seminal works. This first piece is a bit long and dense. Popper and Kuhn are partly to blame! ;) But the rest pf the articles are easier on the mind :).
Also check out my book (which is much easier to read by design): “CREATIVITY SECRETS: Creativity & Innovation Secrets for Design | Business | Art”, by ABHAY (Wharton grad, Artist, Innovator). www.CreativitySecrets.net