Paradigm: An OK Concept for an A-OK People

[coberst]

Paradigm: An OK Concept for A-OK People

Margaret Masterman has written the essay “The Nature of a Paradigm” for inclusion in the book “Criticism and the Growth of Knowledge”.

Her conclusions are: “That there is normal science—and that it is exactly as Kuhn says it is...it is normally a habit-governed, puzzle-solving activity, not a fundamentally upheaving or falsifying activity…‘paradigm’ and not ‘hypothesis’ is now the ‘O.K. word’.”

Kuhn’s paradigm is a fundamental and new idea in the philosophy of science and deserves examination and understanding. Masterman contends that comprehending this new concept can best be undertaken by recognizing that ‘paradigm’ falls within three main epistemological categories.

As a “set of beliefs”, as a successful metaphysical speculation, as a standard, as a “way of seeing”, as an organizing principle itself, as a map, and “with something which determines a large area of reality”--it is a metaparadigm .

Kuhn also defines ‘paradigm’ as a universally recognized scientific achievement, as a concrete achievement, as a set of political institutions, and as likened to an accepted judicial decision—it is a sociological paradigm .

Finally, Kuhn speaks of a more concrete form for paradigm as a text book, as tools, as instrumentation, as a grammar, as an analogy, and as a gestalt figure—it is a construct paradigm .

If you have not yet read “The Structure of Scientific Revolutions” by Thomas Kuhn you must go directly to your closest college library, get a ‘Friend of the Library’ card for a small yearly fee, and study this book. Anybody wanting to be an enlightened and important person must study this book.

Do you agree that anyone wishing to become an enlightened and important person must study this book?

[Cosmo]

Anybody wanting to be an enlightened and important person must study this book.

I do not understand how this follows from anything you've said above. Could you clarify?

[coberst]

I do not understand how this follows from anything you've said above. Could you clarify?

The scientific community and I consider this to be a very important concept. I try to encourage the readers curiosity and interest by writing about it.

[Cosmo]

The scientific community and I consider this to be a very important concept. I try to encourage the readers curiosity and interest by writing about it.

Fair enough, but that does not provide any support for your claim that " Anybody wanting to be an enlightened and important person must study this book."

[coberst]

Fair enough, but that does not provide any support for your claim that " Anybody wanting to be an enlightened and important person must study this book."

Of course it does.

[JamesDillon]

Anybody wanting to be an enlightened and important person must study this book.
How would you know?

[coberst]

How would you know?

Because I studied the book and I am important.

[Foster Zygote]

Because I studied the book and I am important.

You might want to put a little smilie after that. =0)

Steven

[Tricky]

Because I studied the book and I am important.How come I've never heard of you?

[coberst]

How come I've never heard of you?

Probably because you have no "need to know"!

[Apathia]

How come I've never heard of you?

You haven't Googled. lol

[JamesDillon]

Because I studied the book and I am important.

Margaret Thatcher is reported to have once said, "Being powerful is like being a lady. If you have to tell people you are, you aren't." I dare say that being important falls into the same category.

Edit: As does being enlightened, though of course we never get tired of hearing about your own intellectual prowess, coberst.

[Foster Zygote]

Margaret Thatcher is reported to have once said, "Being powerful is like being a lady. If you have to tell people you are, you aren't." I dare say that being important falls into the same category.

Edit: As does being enlightened, though of course we never get tired of hearing about your own intellectual prowess, coberst.

So... Thatcher wasn't a lady? I mean, I'd always wondered...

Steven

[Wudang]

So... Thatcher wasn't a lady? I mean, I'd always wondered...


Must resist ...... can't..oh well.

Once Britain was an empire ruled by an emperor
Then a kingdom ruled by a king
then a country ruled by Thatcher

[maatorc]

Kuhn’s paradigm is a fundamental and new idea in the philosophy of science and deserves examination and understanding. Masterman contends that comprehending this new concept.........

In referring to The Structure Of Scientific Revolutions by Thomas S. Kuhn, the paradigm is not a new concept, as the book has been very well known since 1962.
Having said that: Yes, it's ideas are certainly interesting.
maatorc.

[coberst]

In referring to The Structure Of Scientific Revolutions by Thomas S. Kuhn, the paradigm is not a new concept, as the book has been very well known since 1962.
Having said that: Yes, it's ideas are certainly interesting.
maatorc.



The book was first published in 1962. If you consider 50 years to be too ancient for serious consideration I think you are mistaken. I think that knowledge of this concept is very shallow. I judge that knowledge of paradigm goes litte further than bumper sticker sophistication.I cannot think of any more important concept for comprehending all sciences than this concept.

I must admit that I do not yet understand this concept even though I have dedicated a great deal of time studying the matter. I shall, God willing, someday consider that I do understand this concept because I shall not rest until I do. Drum roll.

[Cosmo]

I must admit that I do not yet understand this concept even though I have dedicated a great deal of time studying the matter. I shall, God willing, someday consider that I do understand this concept because I shall not rest until I do. Drum roll.

If you lack understanding of the concept yourself, what bloody business do you have in claiming that "Anybody wanting to be an enlightened and important person must study this book"?

[c4ts]

Kuhn does not define science itself as a set of beliefs but rather the attitude of the scientific community as it operates, though I find his concept of incommensurability extraneous and ill-defined. Psychic experiments with positive results and the rapid acceptance of Piltdown Man would also work as examples of a paradigm in action, though not as classic as his example of the Ptolomaic universe. None of this, in any way, describes the average psuedoscientist, although they try to claim that this is the reason the scientific community rejects them, nor is this the attack on science postmodernists want it to be. Analyitics does not validate fringe theories nor provide the sole reason a fringe science is not accepted. Kuhn is still talking about things that fall within the definition of "science" to begin with, and does not suggest that paradigms move backwards anymore than they move forwards. (For example, Lavosier didn't re-introduce ancient alchemy or whatever came before it.) There can be dogmatism within a scientific community, and that is why skepticism is so important. It is an important book in the philosophy of science, but along the same line of inquiry I also suggest Karl Popper's critique.

[bruto]

The book was first published in 1962. If you consider 50 years to be too ancient for serious consideration I think you are mistaken. I think that knowledge of this concept is very shallow. I judge that knowledge of paradigm goes litte further than bumper sticker sophistication.I cannot think of any more important concept for comprehending all sciences than this concept.

I must admit that I do not yet understand this concept even though I have dedicated a great deal of time studying the matter. I shall, God willing, someday consider that I do understand this concept because I shall not rest until I do. Drum roll.

I don't think maatorc wasn't saying it's too ancient for serious consideration. He was saying it's been around too long to be called new. I had it as required reading in school 40 years ago. The fact that you've just discovered it does not make it new to everyone else.

[DreadNiK]

Does anyone else wish Coberst would either change his tack or stfu?

[coberst]

If you lack understanding of the concept yourself, what bloody business do you have in claiming that "Anybody wanting to be an enlightened and important person must study this book"?


Awareness + Attention = Consciousness

Comprehension is a hierarchy, resembling a pyramid, with awareness at the base followed by consciousness, succeeded by knowing, with understanding at the pinnacle.

There is a great difference between knowing and understanding. Everyone can answer “yes” when asked if they know music. We receive answers that go on forever when we ask a teenager if they know music. We awaken instant and sentimental memories when we ask an older person to tell what they know about music.

Silence and puzzlement is our response when we ask a person “do you understand music?” Occasionally the question “do you understand music?” receives an expression of delight and a verbal outpouring. The person who understands music--they are few and far between--has studied music in a way very few of us have. I suspect such a person is not only a lover but also a student of music. I do not understand music but I do understand the meaning of “understanding music”.

I create this musical metaphor for the purpose of illuminating a state of affairs of which we are seldom conscious.

Our formal educational system teaches us the knowledge required for making a living. Our formal education does not teach us the understanding required to live well. The development of understanding is something each of us must create on our own. If we do not recognize this fact we will not pursue this understanding and if we do not pursue this understanding we will remain intellectually naive.

We start our formal education experience as intellectually naïve children and end it twelve to eighteen years later as well informed intellectually naïve grown ups.

After formal education ends our understanding begins. The task of understanding is a private enterprise by me and for me. Understanding begins with this recognition and continues as one creates a process for the solitary activity of self-learning. I think a person could look at self-learning as a hobby, it could be one of your hobbies like tennis or golf, just a few hours each week and I suspect after a while it will become a very important part of your life style. Developing a sophisticated intellect is a solitary study lasting a lifetime.

Awareness--faces in a crowd.

Consciousness—smile, a handshake, and curiosity.

Knowledge—long talks sharing desires and ambitions.

Understanding—a best friend bringing constant April.


Carl Sagan is quoted as having written; “Understanding is a kind of ecstasy.”

[coberst]

C4ts says--"It is an important book in the philosophy of science, but along the same line of inquiry I also suggest Karl Popper's critique."

I think you are correct. It seems that most people who consider such matters end up comparing these two important figures.

[coberst]

I don't think maatorc wasn't saying it's too ancient for serious consideration. He was saying it's been around too long to be called new. I had it as required reading in school 40 years ago. The fact that you've just discovered it does not make it new to everyone else.

You might be right.

[coberst]

Does anyone else wish Coberst would either change his tack or stfu?

Why do you not like my 'tack'?

[Kopji]

IMHO a much more accessible book by Karl Popper is his "Conjectures and Refutations'. It seems to cover much of the same fundamental ground as 'Critique' but did not undergo translation. ('Critique' by all accounts an excellent but difficult book). C&R is based on a series of lectures or papers and can tend to be a little repetitive, but I don't think that's always bad for beginners like myself. I enjoyed the book.

Kuhn does seem like worth reading also, except I suspect many of his ideas are well integrated into at least the business world if not the scientific one.
The phrase 'paradigm shift' took off quite a bit and is now so well ingrained that I imagine most newer students have exposure to the ideas without even knowing it. (I know that I cannot use the word paradigm without pounding my head on the wall...) Ouch.

[coberst]

IMHO a much more accessible book by Karl Popper is his "Conjectures and Refutations'. It seems to cover much of the same fundamental ground as 'Critique' but did not undergo translation. ('Critique' by all accounts an excellent but difficult book). C&R is based on a series of lectures or papers and can tend to be a little repetitive, but I don't think that's always bad for beginners like myself. I enjoyed the book.

Kuhn does seem like worth reading also, except I suspect many of his ideas are well integrated into at least the business world if not the scientific one.
The phrase 'paradigm shift' took off quite a bit and is now so well ingrained that I imagine most newer students have exposure to the ideas without even knowing it. (I know that I cannot use the word paradigm without pounding my head on the wall...) Ouch.

I have spent a good bit of time studying Kuhn's book but find that the deeper I dig the broader becomes the task. I think that “paradigm shift” has become part of the public lexicon and like all bumper stickers it is the only thing people know about the matter, and likewise, by thinking they know something, they think they know much more than they do.

I have the feeling that Kuhn has given us an insight into the nature of all sciences, all domains of knowledge, and that if we were to plumb the depths of his insight we would comprehend a great deal more about science than we now do. That is what I am trying to do. I am trying to understand this seminal concept that can be, I think, a means to understand the nature of knowledge.

There is apparently a good bit of controversy about Kuhn versus Popper. I think that these two men are searching a very different forest. I think that Popper is more of a natural sciences kind of guy and Kuhn is more of a world of knowledge kind of guy.

I have much to learn about this matter but this represents my general attitude as I take my leisurely journey toward an understanding of Kuhn.

[bruto]

I have spent a good bit of time studying Kuhn's book but find that the deeper I dig the broader becomes the task. I think that “paradigm shift” has become part of the public lexicon and like all bumper stickers it is the only thing people know about the matter, and likewise, by thinking they know something, they think they know much more than they do.

I have the feeling that Kuhn has given us an insight into the nature of all sciences, all domains of knowledge, and that if we were to plumb the depths of his insight we would comprehend a great deal more about science than we now do. That is what I am trying to do. I am trying to understand this seminal concept that can be, I think, a means to understand the nature of knowledge.

There is apparently a good bit of controversy about Kuhn versus Popper. I think that these two men are searching a very different forest. I think that Popper is more of a natural sciences kind of guy and Kuhn is more of a world of knowledge kind of guy.

I have much to learn about this matter but this represents my general attitude as I take my leisurely journey toward an understanding of Kuhn.

You do have a point there, and it's a common bane of philosophers and others when their theories or terminologies become popular. Paradigm shift has joined the language and now seems to be used for everything from radical change in our view of the universe to the latest change in skirt lengths or TV viewing tastes.

C.S.Peirce had this problem when he coined the term "pragmatism," and found that it grew legs. He replaced the term in his own philosophy with "pragmaticism," hoping that the word would be ugly enough to avoid adoption. I guess it worked, as I don't hear many people claiming to be pragmaticists. Of course it could also be because poor Mr. Peirce was so dense and his work so incomplete that few people would have the confidence to claim it.

Any philosopher who wants to keep his contact with mankind should pervert his own system in advance to see how it will really look a few decades after aadoption. (Saul Bellow, Herzog)

[drkitten]

I have the feeling that Kuhn has given us an insight into the nature of all sciences, all domains of knowledge, and that if we were to plumb the depths of his insight we would comprehend a great deal more about science than we now do. That is what I am trying to do. I am trying to understand this seminal concept that can be, I think, a means to understand the nature of knowledge.

Unfortunately, you're going about it more or less all wrong.

Even Kuhn has backed away from Structure, largely because ignorami have seized onto the term "paradigm" and perverted it beyond recognition. It doesn't help that "this seminal concept" is actually unclear and contradictory (again, as Kuhn himself admits -- he uses the word "paradigm" in something like six mutually incommeasurable senses over the course of
Structure).

But if you want to understand the nature of knowledge, the next thing you have to do is to put Structure out of your mind and read some later Kuhn in which he actually puts out a coherent theory.

[coberst]

drkitten

I am not so sure of that yet. It is a concept that is needed I think.

[Kopji]

I have spent a good bit of time studying Kuhn's book but find that the deeper I dig the broader becomes the task...

...I have much to learn about this matter but this represents my general attitude as I take my leisurely journey toward an understanding of Kuhn.
'Still having much to learn' is a great attitude.

Do you agree that anyone wishing to become an enlightened and important person must study this book?

This seems overly prescriptive. Matsuo Basho wrote that we should not follow in the footsteps of the old poets, but to seek what they sought. That wisdom could apply to philosophers too.