It is greater still in the case of several corresponding changes.

[keannu]

This seems to say, for example, the reason for the transition from geocentric theory to Galileo's heliocentric theory can't be explained well, but probably people who doubted the faults of the former must have tried to correct them, so that can be the reason. I don't get the underlined, and the later part either.

pr29
ex)It is not always easy to determine what has caused a specific change in a science. What made such a discovery possible? Why did this new concept appear? Where did this or that theory come from? Questions like these are often highly embarrassing because there are no definite methodological principles on which to base such an analysis. The embarrassment is much greater in the case of those general changes that alter a science as a whole. It is greater still in the case of several corresponding changes. But it probably reaches its highest point in the case of the empirical sciences: for the role of instruments, techniques, institutions, events, ideologies, and interests is very much in evidence; but one does not know how an articulation so complex and so diverse in composition actually operates.

 

[abaka]

To "get it", you must start asking yourself certain questions.

It is greater still in the case of several corresponding changes.

What is "it"? We know it is "greater". What has already been said to be greater, in the part you've understood?

Which changes are we talking about? What does it mean when several changes correspond?

But it probably reaches its highest point in the case of the empirical sciences

What reaches its highest point? Is it the same "it" that was greater, greater still, and now highest, i.e. greatest?

Why "empirical sciences"? Are there sciences that are not empirical? How about history, mathematics, economics?

 

[keannu]

If I just focus on the meaning of each word, I might get abstract, logic results. I try to get real examples that can explain the words well, which is not easy for me. I guess if Einstein discovered the theory of relativity, the writer seems to say we can't find exactly what triggered or caused his finding. What do you think?

It is greater still in the case of several corresponding changes. But it probably reaches its highest point in the case of the empirical sciences

 

[keannu]

Please help me!!!

 

[5jj]

Have tou tried answering abaka's question, "What is "it"? We know it is "greater". What has already been said to be greater, in the part you've understood?"? That would be a good start.

 

[keannu]

I think I can perceive the literal meanings of words, but this seems to need a lot of scientific background knowlege.

 

[keannu]

I can't thank you enough! The underlined is what I wanted to know and you clearly indicated what it is. The ability is probably the ultimate truth operating without being recognized by only our consciousness, and that can be interpreted as God or transcedent supernatural power or whatever. Even though we do something, we are forced to do it, not knowing how we are supposed to.
This writing is a very profound one, not a superficial one and I was afrad if there might not be a teacher with great understanding that can explain pretty well. Thanks a lot!!! :up::up::up:

The answer, by the way, is that humans have an innate ability to originate new ideas and the source of this ability is not understood.