The term “incomplete” is a good one, in the sense that the effective theory for one range of phenomena is incomplete in terms of the entire range of known phenomena.

Does any actual scientist take Kuhn’s idea of the paradigm shift as applicable to modern science seriously?

I don’t know about real scientists but university lecturers and sociology /philosophy lecturers are nauseating keen on the “paradigm” word and have probably over-used and twisted it to metaphorical death.

However, if some university is recruiting him for a paid research position, that doesn’t say much for that university.

He knows the buzzwords and has a basic understanding—no more and no less than any of the thousands of other kids who read popular science books.

He scores pretty high John Baez’s crackpot index.

I don’t see the point in exposing him to the world and trying to pass him off as the next genius. (Note that Witten didn’t enter physics until his 20s, having studied history first.)

What will happen to him? He will probably become an engineer, make good but not great money but save a lot of it since he won’t have many expenses, then retire early, become a crackpot and self-publish his unified-field theory and send me a complementary copy.

I hope that this doesn’t happen to him. One way to help prevent it is to try to get the parents to do a reality check. Yes, all kids are not the same and yes some are smarter than others, but an above-average kid isn’t necessarily going to solve the big problems in physics which many people who are a lot smarter haven’t yet solved.

Yes, but Kuhn is wrong. His paradigm shift happened a few times back when the church stopped burning people who disagreed with doctrine, but since then science has progressed via self-correction.

What are the two most important achievements of 20th century physics? Many would say relativity and quantum mechanics. Planck was steeped in the tradition of theoretical physics and was very conservative (scientifically). Einstein said that he was radical once in his (scientific) life: the explanation of the photoelectric effect. He was 36 when GR was published, hardly a young whippersnapper.

Can anyone come up with an example from the last, say, 200 years where Kuhn’s analysis is anywhere near correct?

Kuhn’s idea is either scientifically correct or not. If not, then we can ignore it. If it is, then by his own logic it is just a paradigm which will be replaced with another one once the establishment who worships Kuhn has died off.

Does any actual scientist take Kuhn’s idea of the paradigm shift as applicable to modern science seriously?

Indeed. Well said & seconded by me.

Most of these kid genius stories are overblown by the media, but, every once in a great while, the hype is fulfilled (see: Mozart). The kid sucks at piano (I’m not very good but was much better at 12), but it looks like he’ll have at least a decent future in physics. Hopefully he doesn’t get burnt out.

Bold claims like this should tell you everything you need to know. Anyone who has ever had any practical experience with science as an occupations should be rolling their eyes at the standard public and media portrayal of science as some sort of closed society where academic masters rule over the universe with supreme conviction in their findings.

This isn’t the case. Science is always “at the drawing board,” so to speak. This is how discoveries happen. Science is work. It’s experimentation. It’s putting your ideas to the test, and then having others do the same. It isn’t about making bold proclamations and challenging everyone else to prove you wrong. If this kid pursues as career in science, he’ll probably look back on his current statements as those of a smart, but inexperienced kid.

If he starts doing work in any field of physics or astronomy, he’ll quickly realize that the things he claims as being “wrong” do, in fact, work quite well. He’ll quickly realize that the universe does not conform to our preconceptions or beliefs about how it should or should not work. He’ll learn to rely on what is, not what he imagines.

Hopefully, he’ll break the curse of “child geniuses” and move on to some truly innovative and productive work.

@28 NAW:
He is in UNIVERSITY at 12 years old!

This proves nothing. He might know exactly the same amount of stuff as all of ghis contemporaries, but because he has specialised he is at University level in his one specialist subject. While his contemporaries also know some stuff from areas like history, English lit, geography, biology and so on.

What more PROOF do you need that the kid is a frackin’ genius?

Well, perhaps some proof that he understands what he is talking about. As Viggen (23) points out, there is not much evidence in the videos that he understands what he is saying. It’s all very well being able to manipulate equations, but understanding them is something separate.

I wouldn’t use the term “wrong”, I’d use the term “accurate.” Newton’s equations aren’t 100% accurate even when dealing with every day masses/speeds. Still, the accuracy is so high that you don’t need to worry about the 0.0000001% lack of accuracy.*

Similarly, 3.14 isn’t a 100% accurate version of Pi, but it’ll do if you need two digit accuracy in your result.

Thus, Relativity might not be 100% accurate, but it is accurate enough for pretty much everything except the very small (where Quantum Mechanics comes into play). If Relativity is “replaced” it will be by a set of formulas which will reduce down to Relativity for non-QM-sized objects (and reduce further to Newton’s equations for small enough speeds/masses).

* Completely made up number. Feel free to spend the time figuring out the right accuracy difference and substitute it here.

“I worry about the effects the attention will have on young master Barnett, who might well burn out or buckle under the pressure. Hopefully he has a mentor who can throttle down a little, work on his humility and creativity and allow his technical skills and maturity to grow at the same pace. Otherwise, I fear we will never see Barnett as an adult member of the scientific community, and that would be a terrible waste of talent.”

It happens all too frequently, and it remains a tragedy to science and the world.

“…seeing what Barnett can do in the next few years. If he can garner the insight and the imagination needed to marry QM and relativity, to unite these two seemingly immiscible fields, then I will happily cheer him on as he accepts his Nobel Prize.”

Are you anywhere near half serious???

This kid is smart, sure, yet he’s now been denied the full potential of his future because his mom bragged about him and the media frenzy took over and he is now compelled to defend himself against media distortion and other distractions no 12 year old kid should EVER have to undergo!

And all you have to say is:

“But that’s a whole different ballgame than proving it wrong.”

As if it was all about what that little kid might have come up with…instead of the horror he’s going through.

I always thought that you had a better capacity to recognize the actual issue. That’s really depressing for a Monday morning.

If I expand an idea, how does that possibly prove it wrong? I’m *expanding* *the* *idea*, not disproving it. How about we try this in a non-scientific context so the editor won’t be confused?
“President Expands The U.S. military, Thinks He Can Prove It Wrong”

Better yet :

‘Heat expands seawater, proves it wrong!’

Or best of all : Hot air expands, proves it wrong!’