“Are two theories always comparable?” is a question that two rival groups with different philosophical beliefs has battled with for at least half a century. The most famous philosophers of the two opposing groups that comes to mind are Karl Popper and Thomas Kuhn. Kuhn argues that two theories are often comparable while Popper argues with the latter. In the context of two incommensurable theories, I believe that Kuhn’s reasoning surpasses Popper’s. I argue that competing theories cannot be both incommensurable and comparable. This is supported through logical reasoning as well as historical considerations.
If two competing theories are incommensurable, then the terms in one theory don’t have meaning in the other theory, so the two theories …show more content…
Through a chemical reaction, …show more content…
Kuhn states that all theories that share the same taxonomy are in the same paradigm (Lecture 6). All these theories within a paradigm have the same fundamental concepts, and as a result, are commensurable and comparable (Lecture 6). However, if two theories are not in the same paradigm, then the fundamental concepts differ so they cannot even be compared to see which theory is better because the fundamental concepts in one theory has no meaning in the other and vice versa. Moreover, if there is even a possibility that the two theories are mutually translatable, then there will inevitably be something lost in the translation. For instance, Karl Popper argued that Aristotelian physics and Newtonian physics are mutually translatable; both theories predict that the object will fall down from the tree (Lecture 6). However, there is no such thing as ‘falling down’ in Aristotelian physics, it actually descends to the centre of the universe. According to Popper, he claims that two competing theories always have enough common taxonomy to be comparable, but when this is applied to comparing Aristotelian physics and Newtonian physics, the detail of ‘descending towards the centre of the universe’ was lost, and thus if one were to compare the two theories this way, it would not be an accurate comparison
If two competing theories are incommensurable, then the terms in one theory don’t have meaning in the other theory, so the two theories …show more content…
Through a chemical reaction, …show more content…
Kuhn states that all theories that share the same taxonomy are in the same paradigm (Lecture 6). All these theories within a paradigm have the same fundamental concepts, and as a result, are commensurable and comparable (Lecture 6). However, if two theories are not in the same paradigm, then the fundamental concepts differ so they cannot even be compared to see which theory is better because the fundamental concepts in one theory has no meaning in the other and vice versa. Moreover, if there is even a possibility that the two theories are mutually translatable, then there will inevitably be something lost in the translation. For instance, Karl Popper argued that Aristotelian physics and Newtonian physics are mutually translatable; both theories predict that the object will fall down from the tree (Lecture 6). However, there is no such thing as ‘falling down’ in Aristotelian physics, it actually descends to the centre of the universe. According to Popper, he claims that two competing theories always have enough common taxonomy to be comparable, but when this is applied to comparing Aristotelian physics and Newtonian physics, the detail of ‘descending towards the centre of the universe’ was lost, and thus if one were to compare the two theories this way, it would not be an accurate comparison