Rob, it isn't the case that "whatever science can't prove 'doesnt exist'" but that whatever science can't prove simply hasn't been proved or disproved. There are methods for proving that atoms and subatomic particles exist, that the speed of light is a universal constant, that the obloid Earth orbits the sun, etc. Thus far, there is no conclusive proof that ghosts exist, that a cryptozoan inhabits Loch Ness, that our world is being visited by extraterrestrial beings in saucer-shaped vessels.
As for scientists' alleged slowness on the uptake, being only human, they are, it's true, sometimes guilty of that. Most of the resistance to new information, however -- whether it pertained to the New World, evolution of species, plate tectonics, the age of the Universe, you name it -- comes from people who cannot be budged off beliefs which, they have already made up their minds, are The Truth.
"All research," the Swedish writer Andreas Ehrencrona has noted, "presupposes a world-view, a collection of fundamental objects, natural laws and above all definitions of what research is. Where the natural sciences differ from less developed sciences such as economy or psychology is precisely the presence of such strict rules. These often appear obvious to us."
Thomas Kuhn was the first to point out that the conventional view of scientific progress, as a flow of new discoveries added to old ones to form a greater whole, was flawed. Kuhn understood scientific progress to be a succession of world-views, called paradigms. As Ehrencrona notes:
"... Immature sciences are characterized by not having established any paradigms yet. Therefore every researcher has to invent the building stones of his research on his own. Research becoms a random collection of observations that cannot be structured into a whole, since there is no framework to put them in....
"As the field matures, a paradigm establishes itself as the dominant one. Research progresses quickly since the paradigm gives certain fundamental concepts and laws to build on. In addtion, it becomes clear which areas of research are fruitful to work on: those that cannot be explained yet, but on the other hand are no totally incomprehensible in the current view.
"Ptolemian astronomy that placed earth in the center with other heavenly bodies in more of less complex orbits around it, is an example of a long-lived paradigm. When it was established it was possible to concentrate on getting the calculations to correspond better with the observed orbits of the heavenly bodies. This work within the paradigm was successful and it seemed like they were getting closer and closer to a total correspondence with reality.
"Originally, the heliocentric astronomy of Copernicus could not give better orbital predictions than Ptolemios. What was needed to make it a success was a crisis within the earlier world-view. Ptolemeian astronomy step by step became more complicated by the addition of laws for the movements of heavenly bodies. After a while it became obvious that they were not on the right track and the search for alternatives was on.
"According to Kuhn, this is a typical development. Paradigm shifts seldom occur as soon as a new paradigm is invented, but only when the old one is shown to be inadequate. Then a total reevaluation of research is needed. Concepts are turned upside down, earlier research must be reinterpreted and nothing is what it seemed to be, despite it still being the same phenomenon that is described."
There is going to be a test on this material, incidentally, and it will count for half of your grade.
