Uranus cites influence of Neptune
Mar. 17th, 2009 12:00 am![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
koganbot"In 18xx, Alexis Bouvard hypothesized that deviations in the expected orbit of Uranus could be due to the influence of an as yet unseen planet orbiting farther out."
That's an unproblematic use of the word "influence," one that Mark wouldn't object to. But I'm wondering how we should assign influence when the ideas of the influencing agent are misunderstood.
E.g., suppose that, upon the actual discovery of Neptune in 1846, Uranus feels a sudden sense of liberation. Up 'til then, reasons for its deviations have been hypothesized but never proven. Now the reasons are confirmed as good ones, the deviations given a definitive rationale. Uranus decides to take things further. It reasons that, owing to Neptune's having already knocked it off its expected path, the very existence of Neptune must authorize Uranus to deviate as far as it wants to from any path. Now, this is a total misunderstanding of the significance of Neptune, but Uranus isn't a rigorous thinker. In fact, Uranus had never deviated at all. Its path was set by the constraints of gravitational forces, including Neptune's. The "expected path" had been what was off, not Uranus's actual motion. But Uranus can't see this, no matter how much we try to explain. Uranus takes the existence of Neptune as a license to deviate, and deviate it does.
I think the "influence" of Thomas Kuhn is much like the "influence" of Neptune, an influence that's based on a misunderstanding. If I am to have much influence myself, I fear that my influence will be similarly ill-derived.
But can Neptune contend - as it has - that it doesn't have anything to do with Uranus's further deviations? It argues quite correctly that Uranus is simply projecting liberating powers onto Neptune that Neptune neither has nor wants, that it isn't Neptune that causes the deviations but simply Uranus being moved by ideas it has fantasized, these fantasies encouraged by the culture of the solar system, which valorizes deviance. "Blame the culture, blame Uranus's vivid imagination, but don't blame me," says Neptune. This is certainly justified. But nevertheless, without Neptune, would Uranus have acted as it did? One can say, "Oh, Uranus would have found some other excuse," but we don't know this. Would any other excuse have been sufficient? With a sneer, Neptune calls Uranus "conventionally unconventional," and accuses Uranus of evading the true import of Neptune. While this is all true, it doesn't prompt me to retire the question: Could Uranus have done what it did had there had been no discovery of Neptune?
That's an unproblematic use of the word "influence," one that Mark wouldn't object to. But I'm wondering how we should assign influence when the ideas of the influencing agent are misunderstood.
E.g., suppose that, upon the actual discovery of Neptune in 1846, Uranus feels a sudden sense of liberation. Up 'til then, reasons for its deviations have been hypothesized but never proven. Now the reasons are confirmed as good ones, the deviations given a definitive rationale. Uranus decides to take things further. It reasons that, owing to Neptune's having already knocked it off its expected path, the very existence of Neptune must authorize Uranus to deviate as far as it wants to from any path. Now, this is a total misunderstanding of the significance of Neptune, but Uranus isn't a rigorous thinker. In fact, Uranus had never deviated at all. Its path was set by the constraints of gravitational forces, including Neptune's. The "expected path" had been what was off, not Uranus's actual motion. But Uranus can't see this, no matter how much we try to explain. Uranus takes the existence of Neptune as a license to deviate, and deviate it does.
I think the "influence" of Thomas Kuhn is much like the "influence" of Neptune, an influence that's based on a misunderstanding. If I am to have much influence myself, I fear that my influence will be similarly ill-derived.
But can Neptune contend - as it has - that it doesn't have anything to do with Uranus's further deviations? It argues quite correctly that Uranus is simply projecting liberating powers onto Neptune that Neptune neither has nor wants, that it isn't Neptune that causes the deviations but simply Uranus being moved by ideas it has fantasized, these fantasies encouraged by the culture of the solar system, which valorizes deviance. "Blame the culture, blame Uranus's vivid imagination, but don't blame me," says Neptune. This is certainly justified. But nevertheless, without Neptune, would Uranus have acted as it did? One can say, "Oh, Uranus would have found some other excuse," but we don't know this. Would any other excuse have been sufficient? With a sneer, Neptune calls Uranus "conventionally unconventional," and accuses Uranus of evading the true import of Neptune. While this is all true, it doesn't prompt me to retire the question: Could Uranus have done what it did had there had been no discovery of Neptune?
no subject
Date: 2009-03-17 02:32 pm (UTC)But anyway, say that most of the people Dylan had an impact on don't understand him and only superficially resemble him. Nonetheless, he inspires them to do what they would not have otherwise.
no subject
Date: 2009-03-17 02:52 pm (UTC)i am totally happy to divorce this discussion from the word influence, for more than a second: it is totally unnecessary and unhelpful
no subject
Date: 2009-03-17 02:58 pm (UTC)