BARBELITH underground
 

Subcultural engagement for the 21st Century...
Barbelith is a new kind of community (find out more)...
You can login or register.


Underground > Laboratory >

Thomas Kuhn & Paradigms (AAA! Help.)

  
 
The resistable rise of Reidcourchie
16:53 / 15.02.03
I only think it’s fair to mention that I’m researching an essay for my course at the moment. However when I’m looking for a different approach to things I tend to come here. Any guidance on further reading would be much appreciated.

In 1962 Kuhn wrote a book called the Structure of Scientific Revolutions, one of the core ideas of this book was paradigms and how they relate to science. Seven years later he went back and in a second edition got round to defining what he meant by paradigms. This is annoying if you’re studying it today and don’t read books backwards, I would imagine it would have been considerably worse in 1962 having to wait for seven years to find out what the hell he was talking about.

To make matters worse he had two definitions. The first as near as I can follow is:- A paradigm or a set of paradigms are what a community of scientific specialists have in common. This leads to a specific work practice, a common language, symbolic and otherwise and a unanimity of judgements. A consensual and usually predetermined set of tools. This leads to as far as I can tell a science that can extend, evolve (but only linearly) and is not subject to change without serious upheaval, what Kuhn would call a revolution.

The second definition talks about a “group-licensed way of seeing” or all problems are approached according to the same set of rules. To me this would seem to be an anathema to science. Surely a number of different ways to approach a problem would be of more use? These sounds to me more like dogma than science.

Has Kuhn’s approach largely been discredited amongst scientists?

The thing is once a paradigm is established it seems very difficult to change it and that change often comes through resistance. Kuhn does make the point that this is good as it means that people will be taking science seriously and it is not subject to fads (though I would imagine it is to a certain extent, not t mention constrained by the society around it). He describes a paradigm change/revolution as tradition shattering. Should science be allowed to become traditional?

Also can’t the linearity of a paradigm mean that stuff from older paradigms that have fallen along the way but may have been of use (but perhaps the technology of the time was not present to utilise them properly) will be lost?

How does this idea relate to other fields such as the humanities or art? You can see how on the surface different art movements could be described as paradigms (like the movement from representational art) or how certain generalisations about history have been put aside. Kuhn himself did not feel that it should apply to anything other than science I think because he believed that only through science could you truly show progress. I suspect that it cannot be applied to other fields because it lacks the mechanisation of what Kuhn is talking about.

Kuhn talks of anomalies within scientific research that eventually cause revolutions, the thing is these revolutions although not necessary to the creation of paradigms appear to happen often during their creation. Would this not suggest that this all-governing phenomenon often rely on something that does not exist within its framework?

One of the most telling bits is that he seems to be suggesting that science should only be in the hands of a Western Euro-centric technocratic (sciencratic?) elite. That it is only societies that have been influenced by Hellenic Greece that are able to act scientifically and that most scientific progress has come from Western Europe in the last 400 years. He seems to forget that Einstein wasn’t trained as a scientist (I believe he was an amateur). That ancient Greece borrowed a lot of stuff from Egypt (and arguably Sumerian, Mesopotamian and Babylonian societies, nor do I think Persia was backwards compared to it’s Grecian neighbours). The appropriation of knowledge from North African, Middle & Far Eastern cultures that helped with the recent 400 years of advance. Not to mention that science and technology are not necessarily the best yardsticks of cultural progress.

Is there any scientist out there that adheres to Kuhn’s model of paradigms as a good model for scientific research/progress? Doesn’t this lead to overspecialisation? Also Kuhn mentions that scientists don’t get taught the history of their field, going so far as to akin them to Orwellian characters from 1984 who are taught a false history. I this still the case? He also says that the only field that comes close to the rigidity of scientific teaching is Orthodox Theology, with the sort of dogma he’s pushing I can see why he would think that.

Anyway I’d be interested in hearing people’s opinions on this.
 
 
Pepsi Max
06:54 / 17.02.03
1. Abstract please.
2. ...To make matters worse he had two definitions... Another academic examined Kuhn's book and claimed he used the word 'paradigm' in over 30 distinct way. Actually nailing down what a paradigm is can be very very tricky.
3. ...A paradigm or a set of paradigms are what a community of scientific specialists have in common... vs. ...The second definition talks about a “group-licensed way of seeing” or all problems are approached according to the same set of rules...
Not so different really. In any collective endeavour there is constant working out between the group and the individual or the traditional and the innovative (what Kuhn labelled as "The Essential Tension").
4. Has Kuhn’s approach largely been discredited amongst scientists? Mostly natural scientists don't give a toss. Social scientists are different story as we'll see.
5. These sounds to me more like dogma than science. Well, yes and no. A weak version of Kuhn might say that every scientist works within a context. And the majority (especially in high-cost fields like particle physics, say) have to work in institutions. And most institutions have traditions and ways of approaching problems. This is part of the 'craft knowledge' you learn in the lab (or the field) as a scientist. And that's what a paradigm is - the context that shapes the pursuit of scientific knowledge - the "disciplinary matrix". A stronger reading of Kuhn might say that science literally is dogmatic belief system that productively imprisons the thoughts of its inhabitants - until the rupture of "incommensurability" occurs.
he believed that only through science could you truly show progress. You keep on saying that paradigms are "linear". What do you mean? That knowledge increases arithmetically rather than geometrically (a look at the number of scientific papers over the last century would dissuade you of that)? Or do you mean linear as in ordered and continuous? Except that whilst Kuhn is not anti-science, he doesn't necessarily see the quantity of true scientific knowledge steadily increasing. The march of progress is not always in the same direction. These turning points are when paradigms break down and are replaced. the new paradigm describes what direction should be considered "straight ahead". If ya see what I mean. So, I would retort that Kuhn's history of science is "non-linear".
5. How does this idea relate to other fields such as the humanities or art? The "paradigm" notion is referred to quite often in the human sciences (see also Foucault's episteme). Freus, Marxism, Feminism, etc could all be labelled paradigms.
6. One of the most telling bits is that he seems to be suggesting that science should only be in the hands of a Western Euro-centric technocratic (sciencratic?) elite. So Kuhn as elitist and racist? Possibly, but his main focus is the period directly after the renaissance - "The Scientific Revolution" when scientific activity (or natural philosophy to be more precise) exploded. The Scientific Revolution is a pretty unique period in history - prior to that Europe had been the backwater of the world. After two hundred years of traumatic change - it achieved a level of technological prowess never seen before. And as for Einstein: a. he did actually receive a lot of training - altho much of it was informal. b. he's the exception that proves the rule. How many people do you know who have particle accelerators in their back yard?
7. Doesn’t this lead to overspecialisation? Have you seen any PhD thesis topics recently?

I think it's obvious you don't like Kuhn very much. I also think you've created something of a straw man version of his arguments. He is often vague and fudges a lot of his ideas (if I was feeling cruel I'd say he was a physicist pretending to be a historian pretending to be a philosopher) BUT his points about science a "normal" activity do have some value. Especially when compared with the methodological strictures of Popper and the Vienna Circle.
 
 
Quantum
13:11 / 17.02.03
The philosophy of Science fascinates me because it addresses the change of paradigms of beliefs, something applicable (IMHO) to any coherent system of beliefs (Magical paradigms for example). Kuhn and Popper are the fathers of the field I would say, but plenty of brilliant ideas have been proposed. I believe that the dramatic Kuhnian paradigm shift, where 'new' science overthrows 'old' science is not the only mechanism. Check out Paul Feyerabend here for a more recent view. He is famous for being a brilliant maverick; for example after giving lectures on the philosophy of science he would leap out of the window and ride off on his Harley Davidson. I admire that sort of thing in a philosopher.
 
 
Lurid Archive
13:50 / 17.02.03
Hmmm. Pepsi's point about the division between natural and social science is key here, to the extent that its not uncommon for people to seriously contend that little science happens in social science. This isn't simply snobbery; the problems of social science are harder and so much more problematic that an application of the scientific method is rarely straightforward.

So I'm thinking mostly about natural science as I write this. Anyway...

I've heard it argued that the problematic definition of a "paradigm" is really a fundamental weakness in Kuhn's work. In short there is a problem that if one's definition of paradigm makes distinct paradigms incomprehensible then you might argue that there haven't really been any paradigm shifts since the formation of recognisably modern science. At the other extreme, a paradigm shift is simply a change that is part and parcel of scientific progress which is actively encouraged for the most part.

For instance, people often talk about Quantum mechanics as a paradigm shift. And it was, except that in many ways it wasn't. It subsumed rather than ousted Newtonian stuff and still relied on core mechanisms of observation, replicability, falsifiability, etc. I mean, Newtonian mechanics is still taught and used. One could argue that while basic objects of study did change, most core philosophies did not.

Is there any scientist out there that adheres to Kuhn’s model of paradigms as a good model for scientific research/progress?

I don't believe that Kuhn was providing a good model for practice and as much as scientists are interested in philosophy they care about adequacy rather than truth. This is a vital point, IMO. Adequacy is much easier to establish and is more enduring than truth - Quantum versus Newtonian again.

Doesn’t this lead to overspecialisation?

Its inevitable if one makes any progress. And science has made lots.

Also Kuhn mentions that scientists don’t get taught the history of their field, going so far as to akin them to Orwellian characters from 1984 who are taught a false history. I this still the case?

I think it is, to some extent. The defence being that you can teach science, or teach the history of science, but that time taken on one subtracts from the other. Orwellian is a bit strong though, as histories are available to anyone with half a mind to find out.
 
 
grant
14:08 / 17.02.03
Not terribly familiar with Kuhn, so I have to ask - is a paradigm visible? Or is it simply taken for granted - like background noise?
 
 
The resistable rise of Reidcourchie
17:12 / 17.02.03
Pepsi, abstract? I’ve since this mentioned but I don’t understand the context. What do you want me to do here?

Originally posted by Pepsi

“Another academic examined Kuhn's book and claimed he used the word 'paradigm' in over 30 distinct way”

Revolutions came out in 1962. In ’67 the 2nd ed came out. Kuhn admits in the postscript that he used paradigms in many different ways. The two definitions I posted are from the postscript and it’s Kuhn’s attempt to define it, he cut it down to those two definitions.

Originally posted by Pepsi

“Not so different really. In any collective endeavour there is constant working out between the group and the individual or the traditional and the innovative (what Kuhn labelled as "The Essential Tension").”

My understanding of Essential Tension is that it is the ability to live “in a world out of joint” or the ability to cope with a change in paradigm. Essentially working in two paradigms at once, one dying the other being born.

Originally posted by Pepsi

“You keep on saying that paradigms are "linear". What do you mean? That knowledge increases arithmetically rather than geometrically (a look at the number of scientific papers over the last century would dissuade you of that)? Or do you mean linear as in ordered and continuous? Except that whilst Kuhn is not anti-science, he doesn't necessarily see the quantity of true scientific knowledge steadily increasing. The march of progress is not always in the same direction. These turning points are when paradigms break down and are replaced. the new paradigm describes what direction should be considered "straight ahead". If ya see what I mean. So, I would retort that Kuhn's history of science is "non-linear".”

I agree that knowledge can increase geometrically. What I mean is that paradigms seem to provide a sort of a-b-c framework, as if the paradigm is a tunnel you have to travel through. In order to think tangentially Kuhn seems to say you need to kill the paradigm or scientists can be creative but only within certain parameters. The whole thing occasionally smacks of throwing the baby out with the bath water. I can see a cyclical nature of birth & death & birth of paradigms. I wonder if part of the problem is coming from humanities rather than a science background. Don’t get me wrong I can understand having certain rules, methodologies, standards etc, I just don’t think these paradigms are a good example.

Originally posted by Pepsi

“The "paradigm" notion is referred to quite often in the human sciences (see also Foucault's episteme). Freus, Marxism, Feminism, etc could all be labelled paradigms.”

Ah but Kuhn himself claims that paradigms cannot be adapted to the arts, political theory etc. Periods of thinking in these areas are just that, there structures aren’t so tight. Perhaps the word paradigm could be applied (as with magickal paradigms) but again Kuhn would admit himself that he does not use it in it’s strictest dictionary definition.

Origianlly posted by Pepsi

“So Kuhn as elitist and racist? Possibly, but his main focus is the period directly after the renaissance - "The Scientific Revolution" when scientific activity (or natural philosophy to be more precise) exploded. The Scientific Revolution is a pretty unique period in history - prior to that Europe had been the backwater of the world. After two hundred years of traumatic change - it achieved a level of technological prowess never seen before. And as for Einstein: a. he did actually receive a lot of training - altho much of it was informal. b. he's the exception that proves the rule. How many people do you know who have particle accelerators in their back yard?”

Too many but then I moonlight as a Hong Kong Cavalier. Einstein as an exception I can appreciate. I don’t know much about the chap but did he receive resistance because of his background? Because resistance is implicit in what Kuhn describes. Would a willingness to accept the amateur without official training in the priesthood be a good or bad thing for science?

I do understand the importance of that whole period but even allowing for your points the claims about Hellenic Greece are outrageous even for 1962. He does not allow for the foundations of this “scientific revolution” being built outside of Europe (not all of it but much) and he doesn’t even allow for America’s contribution (Edison anyone?). Plus there seems to be an implicit suggestion of science & technology as the main yardstick for societal progress but as this a pet peeve of mine I may just be jumping at shadows.

As for overspecialisation, I’m aware it’s happening but should it be encouraged so much? It seems that it is counterproductive to the creation of “scientific revolutions” which seem to be useful to progress. I know in history that the current trend is for microcosmic research. Kuhn does mention that new paradigms tend to be found by young men as they have the least invested in the old paradigm, surely that’s an illustration of the need to abandon paradigms, to change a way of approaching these things?

You allude to expense and funding I wonder how much that has to do with these things. People unable to afford to be wrong.

Originally posted by Pepsi

“I think it's obvious you don't like Kuhn very much. I also think you've created something of a straw man version of his arguments. He is often vague and fudges a lot of his ideas (if I was feeling cruel I'd say he was a physicist pretending to be a historian pretending to be a philosopher) BUT his points about science a "normal" activity do have some value. Especially when compared with the methodological strictures of Popper and the Vienna Circle.”

It’s not so much as I don’t like him as I’m at a bit of a loss. But yes I am very wary of creating a straw man version of his arguments, I’m being far to judgmental in my reading (which to a certain extent I can get away with here). It struck me that he was attempting to create a scientific formula for the history of science. It also struck me that he makes a lot of generalisations about what ‘all scientists’ do.

I think a lot of the problem is not being sure whether he’s saying this is what’s happening, or saying this is what’s happening and how it should be happening, it just seems to paint a pretty depressing picture of scientific research.

Pepsi thanks for your contribution.

Quantum, cheers for the link, I had a brief look I will be investigating it.

Originally posted by Lurid Archive

“Hmmm. Pepsi's point about the division between natural and social science is key here, to the extent that its not uncommon for people to seriously contend that little science happens in social science. This isn't simply snobbery; the problems of social science are harder and so much more problematic that an application of the scientific method is rarely straightforward.”

Isn’t that what Kuhn is trying to do though, enforce a scientific process on a humanity? Or am I overstating the point.
Lurid that’s excellent stuff, largely I agree with it, just need something to substantiate it. Orwllian was the phrase that Kuhn used. It strikes me that perhaps scientific history should be taught because of the implied obsolescence of old paradigms, just in case they missed it but then as a wanna’ be historian I would say that and I realise that’s slightly simplistic.

Grant in answer to your question a bit of both as far as I can tell.
 
 
Funktion
01:47 / 19.02.03
I am actually just beginning to read Kuhn's Structures..

As for overspecialisation, I’m aware it’s happening but should it be encouraged so much?

No, I believe overspecialization as a whole is not the best thing for our species in some sense though it is more efficient in other senses.
It depends on what you value most about human societal progress I guess.
But then again any hardcore institutional trend towards specialization simply leads to well rounded scientists springing from the self taught.
Take someone like R Buckminster Fuller for instance, who lived around Kuhn's time...
Powerful independent critical thinkers like him, who are more self-created are the ones- like Newton, the Last Sorcerer- who advance science.
 
 
The resistable rise of Reidcourchie
15:18 / 23.02.03
Thanks very much for whomever added the abstract, can't believe I missed them, duh.

Would anyone know who has crtiqued Kuhn's ideas? Preferably severely?
 
 
agapanthus
16:26 / 23.02.03
Reidcourchie, Imre Lakatos is one who has critiqued Kuhn's philosophy and history of science. Lakatos argues that scientific revolution occurs in a more rational manner than Kuhn's paradigm shifts. Lakatos takes elements of Kuhn's theories and also Popper's falsification theory and synthesises them into 'sophisticated falsification'. I'm a bit hazy on all of this now, but A.F. Chalmers' book "What is this thing called Science" is an excellent overview of the variety of approaches taken to the H & P of Science.
 
 
Pepsi Max
04:32 / 24.02.03
Chalmers book is very Popperian (he studied at the LSE under Popper).
Lakatos does indeed combine Popper and Kuhn. More modern criticism of Kuhn can be found in Steve Fuller's book:
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0226268969/qid=1046068308/sr=1-2/ref=sr_1_2/002-1141510-4578449?v=glance&s=books

And the ensuing academic controversy. If yuo can be arsed.
 
 
illmatic
11:02 / 25.02.03
If you want to see an interesting example of "paradigm-clasing" in action, you could do worse than look at the work of Wilhelm Reich. Reich started off as a Freudian psycho-analsyst and moved from here to invent/discover (depeding on your POV) a biological and environmental energy which he called "orgone".

Reich's main biographer, Myron Sharaf, makes explict use of Kuhn's ideas to explain Reich in his biography "Fury On Earth". It's an amazing read (an amazing life, in fact) regardless of whether you agree/disagree with Reich. I'd just add that the whole concept of orgone and Reich's work dealing with this, is a lot more consistent and sophisticated than it might appear on first perusal.
 
 
The resistable rise of Reidcourchie
10:41 / 05.07.03
Hello again.

Just a quick note to say thanks for everyone who helped me out on this. This was the most difficult essay I had to do this year and I got quite a good mark. (Though my tutor said he didn't feel that I'd fully understood the concept of Paradigms, though I feel I did and just disagreed with him.)

Anyway thanks for the help, it was very useful and set me off on the right research path in subject I was floundering in.
 
 
—| x |—
19:53 / 05.07.03
"Though my tutor said he didn't feel that I'd fully understood the concept of Paradigms, though I feel I did and just disagreed with him."

Yeah, this is one of those annoying things that some people will say when either: a) like you say, you've disagreed with them, but they don't have a good argument to counter your disagreement, or b) they haven't understood what you've said about such and such.

This is something that I get every once in awhile, esp. with regard to topics and concepts that I've developed beyond what is considered "a standard interpretation." Some people simply like things to stay the same, even when alterations are clearly for the better.
 
  
Add Your Reply