Talk:Paradigm shift

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You have new messages (last change).
 This article is part of the History of Science WikiProject, an attempt to improve and organize the history of science content on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion. You can also help with the History of Science Collaboration of the Month.

I'm looking at these pages because I need to know more about "paradigms", so I am not ready to edit here. I have rather, an issue. It is, I see the term 'explanation' used where I think the term 'model' belongs. In a loose sense, an 'explanation' is a 'model' but seems to me, when we get this close to a term, an 'explanation' is for a child and a 'model' is for a philosopher or a worker in a professional field. And I think 'model' is called for here, but I feel far from ready to write my thinking into this Wiki entry. If somebody else can do this, from an expert knowledgeable point of view, I'd sure like to see it because I'm working on an idea of culture differences and changes seen from a paradigm point of view. -- Martha Adams

Paradigm shifts can also occur in complex systems and organizations. F. Lee Horn

What about the application of the Paradigm Shift in the field of International Relations - or more specifically - US domestic views towards isolationism and intervention which influences foreign policy. -Samuel

That would be extrapolating to the nth degree to anthropomorphicize pre-cambrian monocellular organisms, very New Age! You earned 2 silver stars on your scribble book =).

Oh, wow! Like...kewl! Oh, BTW...it's "anthropomorphize." :) F. Lee Horn

Ooops, you got me! Must have had a paradigm shift and learned minor spelling mistakes only matter in the Paramecium village Þ

Not one of these examples illustrate's Thomas Kuhn's theory. Most of them I consider BS. And you have completely missed Kuhn's basic point that paradigm shifts can only be useful if they are punctuations of normal science. In fact disciplines which do not manage to spend most of their time nicely settled in to a paradigm are guaranteed to fail as sciences. (They may fail as sciences for other reasons as well but...)

Perhaps we need the page rewritten? Say by the same person who wrote the Thomas Samuel Kuhn page? -BJT

Hmmm. I began this page(although the revisionist Wiki history starts Jan 2002) with a small dictionary-style definition. It has grown! BF

I've tried to tighten up the writing, but it needs a lot more work. I used The Structure of Scientific Revolutions entry as a reference. Possibly a lot of the stuff here is redundant to that entry. - David Gerard 22:26, Jan 19, 2004 (UTC)

I tried to re-orientate it to be a bit more clear about what Kuhn was trying to get at, and re-organized the "examples" to reflect the nature of the shift, which is the result of the process, not just a list of achievements or discoveries. If anyone seriously objects to my understanding of this though, I'd be willing to talk about it. --Fastfission 22:02, 15 Jun 2004 (UTC)

A real improvement. The tightening up of the examples alone makes a big difference. Dandrake 03:22, Jun 17, 2004 (UTC)

---

I am not sure if call-by-push-value can be regarded as a paradigm shift. I didn't know this concept before reading this wikipedia page and yet I am doing research in the area of programming languages. It looks like an interesting unifying work but it is maybe a bit early to compare it with the revolutionary works of Copernic, Newton or Darwin. V. Cremet

Contents

[edit] Comment on the examples that are presented in the article

To my knowledge, the Copernican revolution was started by Galileo and Kepler. To my knowledge, Copernicus used the tools of the Ptolemaic paradigm: cycles and epicycles, and other means, and his model needed more of them than the geocentric ptolemaic model of Copernicus' time. Arguably, Copernicus' cosmology was the worst in the history of cosmology. The credit for being the first to present a heliocentric cosmology with scientific credibility should go to Kepler, the first to departure from the toolbox of the ptolemaic paradigm. It bothers me a bit that Kepler is not recieving full credit.

According to Kuhns "The Copernican Revolution" the prior statement would be considered erroneous. Yes, there were problems with the Copernican system, but to say his cosmology was the worst in history is foolish. Also, acording to Kuhn, Copernicus brought forth the revolution, but credit must be given to Kepler, Galileo, and others for its completion

  • The unification of classical physics by Newton into a coherent mechanical worldview.

This unification was normal science. Newton solved a huge puzzle. Contemporaries like Hooke, Wren and Huygens believed in an inverse square law for gravity, but they couldn't substantiate that mathematically. Arguably, Newton did start a paradigm shift in mathematics, Newton (and, independently, Leibniz) caused change in the thinking about what is mathematically well-founded.

This is a tricky one. The Maxwell equations are invariant under Lorentz transformation. Historically, the Maxwell equations were crucial in providing clues to special relativity, it was Einstein's main guidance. Henri Poincaré had written down all the equations of special relativity too, in his explorations of the mathematics of the Maxwell equations, but he hadn't published, because he didn't judge them helpful in elucidating physics. To this day, the Maxwell equations have not been superseeded.
It is quite astonishing that alhough Maxwell's visualisations to help him in finding the Maxwell equations were in a completely different direction than elektrodynamics was later to take, the equations themselves have stood the test of time.

Ever since the introduction of relativistic physics, physicists must be proficient in two different paradigms. That is, they must be able to conduct normal science in both newtonian physics, and in relativistic physics, depending on the circumstances. Also, physicists have learned that no theory should ever be considered the final word. Physicists are working hard to find the theory that will do to relativity what relativity did to newtonian physics.

That was a paradigm shift, but I wouldn't call it an overthrow. The theoretical physicists trying to find equations for Quantum mechanics had desparately little clues. One of their main tools to narrow down searches was that the Quantum calculation had to predict exactly the same things as classical electrodynamics; the predictions of classical electrodynamics had to be reproduced seamlessly. This is called the principle of complementarity.

To my knowledge, there was no such thing as 'lamarckian thinking' at the time. I'm inclined to say that the theory of darwinistic evolution turned a field of inquiry that was pre-scientific before on the road to being a field to conduct science in.

  • The acceptance of Plate tectonics as the explanation for large-scale geologic changes.

The discovery of plate tectonics was a surprise, like the discovery of for example X-rays had been, but I'm not sure I would categorize it as a paradigm shift. There was no need to shift in thinking to new laws of geophysics. Then again, I don't know how the height of the Himalaya's was accounted for before.

The question of whether paradigm shifts occur is of course one of philosophical and historical dispute, but if they do occur then the developments listed in the article are all considered to be examples of those. The most common criticism of Kuhn's model from philosophers and historians at the time it was first released were that his terms were proposed too discretely—paradigm shifts only seemed to occur in the way he described when you took a large view of the history, not when you got to the details. But this isn't really the forum to discuss all of that, though perhaps a note to the effect of what I just wrote might be useful. --Fastfission 02:58, 7 Feb 2005 (UTC)
I think the examples that Thomas Kuhn gave in his book are excellent examples of paradigm shifts. I agree with you that common characteristics in the history of science should count, rather than the finer details.
On the other hand: I agree with Thomas Kuhn that very often superficial histories of science "embellish" the story, retrofitting it to modern expectations. I feel history should be very accurate. The shift in thinking from luminiferous ether to relativistic space-time was certainly a paradigm shift. Henri Poincaré had encountered al the relativistic equations in his own explorations, but he didn't attribute significance to them. Typically for a paradigm shift, the concept of luminiferous ether was abandoned after the paradigm shift. But the equations of Maxwell have stood the test of time. --Cleon Teunissen 13:12, 7 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Well, Poincaré was never a fan of relativity anyway, probably because of his love for mechanics, but that's really another story. The equations of Maxwell are still used though their intuitive meaning has changed quite a bit, which is what would concern Kuhn more. And nothing has really "stood the test of time" that is only 150 years old, a historian would note. ;-) --Fastfission 16:04, 7 Feb 2005 (UTC)
I put a lot of emphasis on engineering, that is the background of my opinion that the Maxwell equations have stood the test of time. It's like the history of concepts of the shape of the earth. The ancient greek philosophers concluded on the basis of the evidence available at the time that the earth is spherical in shape. Later Newton showed it had to be an ellipsoid, due to the rotation around its axis. I'm not very demanding in that respect: Newton's science is superior, but the deduction that the earth is spherical has not been invalidated, in my judgement. --Cleon Teunissen 10:25, 13 Feb 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Laymen vs expert terms examples

I find the "laymen terms" section in principle to be very unencyclopedic. Either it should be dropped, or the "expert terms" section should be rewritten in a way which is more clear. I also find the "laymen terms" section in content to be very poorl—paradigm shifts are not shifts "from folly" or even "misconceptions" to something "better conceived," in the Kuhnian definition. They are not considered to be movements from "false to true" but instead are from "false to false" (or, alternatively, "true to true"). That's why as a concept it is interesting—if it was just a shift of conceptions, from false ones to true ones, it wouldn't be any different than positivist conceptions of theory change. I think the current "lay" formulation is misleading at best—if there is a "lay" formulation, it is just that a "paradigm shift" means to "think outside the box" imposed by previous experience. In any event, I think the section ought to be dropped, and will do so soon unless someone objects. --Fastfission 02:58, 7 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I also think the 'layman section' should be dropped, for the reasons given above. --Cleon Teunissen 12:53, 7 Feb 2005 (UTC)
It's a week later now, and no objection has been raised to dropping the "layman terms section".
Also, I think the expert terms section does not fully represent Thomas Kuhn. I think the concept of paradigm shift is popperianized in that section. Here is how I understand Thomas Kuhn: judging the anomalies as critical becomes general in the scientific community after a paradigm shift. The judgement that a crisis was on is made in retrospect. A minority (or a single person) in the scientific community is far earlier in judging a crisis is on, and they will set their aim on revolutionary science. If that minority manages to present a paradigm with scientific credibility, then a paradigm shift throughout the entire scientific community can take place. Whether the paradigm shift spreads to the entire community is up to the individual judgement of the members of the community. During the period of paradigm shift both paradigms are defensible with sound arguments. If a paradigm shift takes place, then after years of normal science the weight of evidence confirming the superiority of the new paradigm piles up. Superficial histories of science tend to mock early scientists for not seeing that evidence straight away. --Cleon Teunissen 09:47, 13 Feb 2005 (UTC)

[edit] meta-paradigmatic science

In many examples of paradigm shift, both the concepts and the toolbox are replaced. After Kepler and Newton, the ptolemaic toolbox was abandoned; it had been rendered obsolete. However, after relativistic physics was introduced, the newtonian toolbox remained the main toolbox of the physics community. The same is valid for electrodynamics. To be an engineer in electrodynamics, you must be an expert in conducting normal science in classical electrodynamics.

There is a more profound paradigm shift involved here, that is not described by Thomas Kuhn. Before the introduction of special relativity, it was considered normal to believe that newtonian dynamics was 'the final word'.
The introduction of relativistic dynamics showed that it is wrong to believe that the visualisations that have helped in finding the equations of the theory are in any way true. The mathematics of a theory is likely to last, the interpretation of the theory is certain to get replaced someday.
The article states that anomalies will throw a science in a state of crisis. That statement is clearly wrong: anomalies have never thrown a science in a state of crisis. (Decades later, superficial histories may state that there was a crisis back then). In current physics, all physicists are eagerly awaiting the successor to general relativity and quantum mechanics, but at the same time they are confidently continuing to do normal science in general relativity and quantum mechanics. In physics it is now part of the expectation pattern that multiple paradigms will be current simultaneously.

I propose that there is a fourth phase: (1) pre-scientific, (2) normal science, (3) revolutionary science, (4) meta-paradigmatic science. In my opinion, relativistic physics and quantum physics have ushered physics into this fourth phase.
The article should only represent the views of Thomas Kuhn, there is no point in elaborating beyond the views of Thomas Kuhn. But I feel it is wrong to state that the transition from newtonian physics to relativistic physics was a typical example of a paradigm shift; newtonian physics has been retained, and not just out of some sort of lazyness, newtonian physics has been retained because it is exceptionally good. --Cleon Teunissen 14:13, 7 Feb 2005 (UTC)

As long as you understand that the article must reflect Kuhn's view (whether you agree or not).. Newtonian physics as been "maintained" in a certain sense (practical, day to day), but its worldview does not. Kuhn's theory is more about worldviews than it is equations. You can used Newtonian gravitation equations for pretty good approximations of the orbit of Jupiter, but nobody considers gravity to be what Newton did anymore, and don't use Newtonian conceptions when thinking about the limits of their knowledge or how to propose new experiments. That's what Kuhn cares about—how paradigms affect experimental practice (which might be a limitation, one could fairly argue)—not whether or not the equations are still around. At least, that's my understanding of it, from a number of his books. --Fastfission 16:09, 7 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Yes, I agree that today's deep probing experiments do not test newtonian conceptions; that is a thing of the past. And I agree that Kuhn is focused on conceptions.
To this day, cutting edge technology is being developed by engineers in fields that require newtonian thinking only (I recently came across the coriolis flow meter; amazing technology External link: the Micro Motion tutorial
I think that it is significant that there will always be employment for newtonian normal science. This means that I see the problem-solving of how to implement fundamental knowledge into working devices as a part of normal science. Its not just that the equations are still around, the thinking is still around, and it is still producing cutting edge technology.
So I feel it is meaningful to make a distinction between paradigm shifts after which the previous concepts are abandoned, and paradigm shifts after which the previous concepts remain productive, and this affects my judgement on what to consider typical examples of a paradigm shift. --Cleon Teunissen 17:29, 7 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Well, I'm not a physicist, but it doesn't to me that Newtonian mechanics generates a "normal science" program anymore in the Kuhnian sense, and has been regulated down to being a "tool" (or an "instrument," if you may). The transition between the Newtonian worldview and the Relativistic worldview is generally considered a typical example, whether or not you find it to have been a good example of a paradigm shift (your objection seems to be about the definition of paradigm shift itself more than whether this is an example of one). An alternative conception of the Kuhnian framework you might find interesting is Peter Galison's concept of "trading zones," which takes instruments and tools into account more than the Kuhnian version does (and isn't as strict about the boundaries of one worldview to another). --Fastfission 18:03, 7 Feb 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Wizzy graphs

The graphs that are presented make reading the text harder (because they are text-as-image, they must be overly large). The second graph is also fairly meaningless, as it conflates computation speed with Moore's Law (which only speaks to transistor density).

How do these graphs help to explain the nature of a paradigm shift?

-Harmil 13:58, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

  • I tend to agree that they don't. At best they explain Ray Kurtzweil's goofy futurology theories and nothing else. Which is not the topic of this page. I'm inclined to drop them both. --Fastfission 14:17, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Deletion

I deleted the following on grounds of logical inconsistency and reference to unverifiable sources. Fanshawe 15:09, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

  • British underground philosopher Michael Swann advocates a form of self-psychiatry which involves adopting radical new paradigms in which one adopts new memes over and over again until you are able to analyse the persistent behaviour patterns and reconcile your own identity, he terms this deconstruction therapy.

[edit] Definition of logical positivism

Logical positivism is defined as "abstracting science into a purely logical or philosophical venture." The Logical positivism does not seem to define itself in this way. There seems to be something of a gap. There needs to be a citation for this definitino, or it should be removed. Sholto Maud 05:02, 22 March 2006 (UTC)


[edit] How about Euclid

How bout the change from Euclidian geometry to Non-Euclidean_geometry was that a paradigm shift?--mexaguil 06:26, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Intro

Cut from intro:

Don Tapscott was the first to use the term to describe information technology and business in his book of the same title.

I glanced at his WP entry, and it looks like a puff piece or vanity page. Should I have read it more carefully? I didn't see anything about his book, let alone anything relevant to Kuhn's idea. --Uncle Ed 14:38, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

It's there; the article says "Tapscott was the first to use the term Paradigm shift with respect to business". At least the version in the PS article makes some sense. But it doesn't sound like much of a quote to me, if I understand it correctly. Don T the first to call the IT/business/Internet/etc synergy a paradigm shift? In 1992? Time for some original research. Counter-examples: this. Another vanity piece with all the buzz words - this 1991 company predates Don T's book by a year. Or this article two months before Don's Book came out; or this book. FWIW. AvB ÷ talk 21:03, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
I think this is pretty much obviously bullshit. --Fastfission 21:26, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

Tapscott non notable is inaccurate -- even by Google test, "don tapscott" + "paradigm shift" gets more than 10,000 hits.

The fact that Tapscott being first to use the term is unproven is noted.

[edit] Pessimistic induction and the problem of induction

Is pessimistic induction supported by Kuhn's theory of paradigm shifts, and if so how do scientific realists counter this and the problem of induction? I think that these both support Kuhn's paradigm shift and should be mentioned in the article.62.249.242.232 06:02, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Poor examples

I don't see how Gaia Theory caused a paradigm shift in anything. Does anyone in biology even accept it? This "example" should remain out.

As for the Theory of Evolution, I'd like to see a source claiming that scientists ever accepted "special creation" as an actual hypothesis. Haven't all evolution supporters been saying for years how any idea having to do with God or supernatural forces is not scientific? Please repair this latter example, and then put it back. --Uncle Ed 19:12, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] View that Kuhn was wrong in his examples

Cut from examples section:

The most common criticism of Kuhn from historians of science, though, is that the notion of a clean paradigm shift only seems to apply when one takes a very abstract view of the history of any given theory transition. When looking at the details, it has been argued, it becomes increasingly difficult to discern a coherent "paradigm" to shift in to or out of, unless one is examining only pedagogical practices (such as textbooks, which is in fact largely how Kuhn developed his theory).

Who says it's difficult to discern the paradigm? A Wikipedian contributor? If so, we must exclude this text per WP:OR.

To fix this, we should elaborate on a couple of examples, saying that a particular Named Source claims that no discernable paradigm shift occured, and explaining why that source says this: e.g., there was no paradigm (like the Ptolemaic idea of circular orbits and the immobility of the earth was "not a paradigm").

After fixing this section, please put it back. --Uncle Ed 13:34, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

It's a very, very common criticism—it's not OR, but it can certainly be cited and elaborated upon. --Fastfission 13:37, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../p/a/r/Talk%7EParadigm_shift_7af3.html"