The early linguist
Leonard Bloomfield believed it necessary to develop linguistics as a cumulative, non-personal discipline; as a "genuine" science. In a talk in 1946, speaking of the development of the
American Linguistics Society, he stated the fostering of such a discipline had saved it "from the blight of the
odium theologicum and the postulation of schools . . . denouncing all persons who disagree or who choose to talk about something else," and he added "The struggle with recalcitrant facts, unyielding in their complexity, trains everyone who works actively in science to be humble, and accustoms him to impersonal acknowledgement of error." Philosopher and historian of science
Thomas Samuel Kuhn argued that scientists are strongly committed to their beliefs, theories and methods (the collection of which he termed "
paradigms"), and that science progresses mainly by
paradigm shifts. He claimed that scientists with conflicting paradigms will hold to them as dearly as theologians hold to their theological paradigms. Philosopher of mathemathics and science
Imre Lakatos, a student of
Karl Popper, described the nature of science in a similar manner. According to Lakatos, science progresses by continual modification or else supersession of what he termed "research programs" (roughly equivalent to Kuhn's "paradigms"). Lakatos claimed that a research program is informed by
metaphysical beliefs as well as observation of facts, and may infinitely resist
falsification if a scientist wishes to continue holding it in spite of problems or the discovery of new evidence. If this view is correct, science does not remedy
odium theologicum, it provides another field in which it may manifest. In the controversy over the validity of
fluxions the philosopher
George Berkeley addressed his Newtonian opponent: Whatever view of science and the
sociology of scientific knowledge is correct, it is a fact that in the
history of science there have been many instances of new theories (e.g.,
germ theory of disease, finitude of the
speed of light,
radioactivity) being ridiculed and shunned by the greater scientific community when first proposed or discovered, only later to be adopted as more probably accurate. ==See also==