Talk:Paradigm
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 |
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. |
| ??? | This article has not yet been assigned a rating on the quality scale. |
| ??? | This article has not yet been assigned a rating on the importance scale. |
 |
This article is supported by the Sociology WikiProject, which gives a central approach to Sociology and related subjects on Wikipedia. Please participate by editing the article Paradigm, or visit the project page for more details on the projects. |
| Start | This article has been rated as Start-Class on the quality scale. |
| High | This article has been rated as High-importance on the importance scale. |
The last paragraph of the current article criticizes in POV fashion the use and/or abuse of this term. The criticism is silly in the respect that words, obviously, do not have immutable meanings: words are tools to express whatever an individual or community want them to communicate. On the other hand, using a word in a sense that is unknown to an intended audience, indeterminate, meaningless or misrepresentative is not helpful. If wiki is to have any diatribe on use/abuse of a word, then the first word on the list should be metaphysical. IMO, that word has been the greatest source of error, misunderstanding and nonsense in the history of the world. Besides all that, there is at least a third use of the word that is common (perhaps the most common) and meaningful which is used in the sense of Weltanschauung. My article edit that follows reflects what I've stated here. --B 16:48, 22 Oct 2003 (UTC)
Isn't there also a second use in linguistics, a "paradigm sentence", meaning an example to be used by analogy in correctly forming sentences? -- Jmabel 22:59, 30 Jan 2004 (UTC)
Paradigm? To me, that's 20 cents. --User:Juuitchan
- Ouch. --128.100.36.228 15:32, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
Contents |
[edit] "The Human Paradigm"
(Lengthy and not apparently relevant Christian tract that was anonymously pasted here moved to Talk:Paradigm/Tract. -- Jmabel 17:32, Oct 8, 2004 (UTC)
[edit] deigma
What's a deigma? lysdexia 18:48, 25 Oct 2004 (UTC)
- I assume you mean in Greek? I don't think all on its own "deigma" means anything, but I could be mistaken. You might ask one of the people listed at Wikipedia:Translators_available#Greek-to-English. -- Jmabel | Talk 20:33, Oct 25, 2004 (UTC)
[edit] Gebser's new consciousness
I think it would be relevant to insert a paragraph or so about Jean Gebser's theories on change in consciousness. — FJ | hello 08:16, May 10, 2005 (UTC)
[edit] Cybernetics
Is there any citation for the claimed use of this term in cybernetics? -- Jmabel | Talk 05:12, Jun 8, 2005 (UTC)
[edit] Paradigm as "Weltanschauung"
I would like to suggest another perspective to the concept of what a paradigm is: A Paradigm is the Gestalt (= the whole is more than the sum of its parts) of the three main branches of philosophy that forms a "Weltanschauung" (German for 'Worldview')
In my recent dissertation I discussed the use of paradigm in the understanding of Kuhn and others, but found it to be unclear idem per idem to other concepts like a model.
Kuhn defines a paradigm as: “an entire constellation of beliefs, values and techniques, and so on, shared by the members of a given community” [Kuhn, T S; The Structure of Scientific Revolutions, 2nd Ed., Univ. of Chicago Press, Chicago & London, 1970, p.175]. This definition by Kuhn appears in the 1969 postscript to his original book, because originally the use of the term paradigm was not clearly defined. Besides this definition Kuhn mentioned another sense of use he had: a Paradigm also “denotes one sort of element in that constellation, the concrete puzzle-solutions which, employed as models or examples, can replace explicit rules as a basis for the solution of the remaining puzzles of normal science” [Ibid]. The term remains imprecise due to the different uses it is given.
I would suggest a definition describing paradigms from a structural perspective. Paradigms operate on different levels; the macro, messo and micro levels of a paradigm's structure. The levels address the fundamental structure of the paradigms, rather than its chronological-historical categorisation or the etymological use, as used by most disciplines. The levels of paradigms are always present and not limited to these categories. They assists in an understanding of the functioning of a paradigm.
In the macro level, a cognisance of the basic assumption to the question: ‘what can be understood’ is required. The question is: "Can it in reality be assumed that the essences of ideal things could be known at all, as in Plato's and Aristotle's use of the theory of ideas? Besides the essentialistic approaches of these two philosophers, is it not possible that "the things themselves reveal themselves as they are", analysed in Heidegger's fundamental ontology? The assumption we make in answering these questions will predispose the perception that determines the way we ask the question about how we come to knowledge.
In the messo level, the question is how the macro level influences and forms the resulting theory of knowledge. “Is only deductive-delimited knowledge of human perception available to man, or is man open to an inductive-comprehensive understanding of the world?”. If man is open to inductive knowledge, where does it originate? The assumption on the macro level is the basis for this assumption. All philosophical efforts since the pre-socratics are essentialistic. An ontological approach seeks to evade the essences of things, requiring the things themselves to reveal them as they are.
In the micro level, the consequent perception of the two preceding levels, answering the questions of what is in the world and how the world is understood, is used in a practical way of doing. Is the praxis built on multiple ‘laws of conduct’ (ethic), or is it a fundamental and constant encounter with the open world as a different way of perception? Such a different perception is an 'affective awareness'. Previous and current understanding of perception is limited to essentialistic categories of limitation. 'Affective awareness' is by nature open and unlimited, inductive and not limited to 'sense perception'.
So a Paradigm is a view of reality that is a 'Gestalt' resulting from:
(1) my metaphysical assumption of what could be known (refer to the pre-Socratics Parmenides and Heraclitus). It forms the basis for:
(2) my conception of epistemological knowledge acquisition. This is the essentialistic line of thinking from Plato, Aristotle and Popper vs. the ontological line of thinking opened up by the 'Unscharf relation' of Heisenberg's quantum theories to Heidegger's 'Fundamental Ontology'. This in turn is the basis for the:
(3) praxis in an ethic for living.
It is obvious that the three branches of philosophy describe the structure of a paradigm. None of the branches of Metaphysics, Epistemology and Ethics can be left out for understanding paradigms. Together they describe a 'Gestalt', akin to a spiral (not a mere circular) movement, forming Hermeneutical understanding.
The result is that Hermeneutics can not be reduced to an interpretation of something; it is a developmental cycle that involves:
(a) "Wahrnemung" as an 'affective awareness', which is more than mere sense perception. The method toward an affective awareness is through 'ontological understanding'. It forms the principles behind a paradigm, conceived as either the Heraclitean 'flux' or the Parmenidean 'one'. This principle is perceived as the relation of the limited to the unlimited. Meta-ethical 'principles', like the golden ethical rule of “Do unto others as you would like them to do unto you”, are formed here.
(b) "Verstehen" as the analysis of 'being' to reach understanding of the 'self'. Here the building of, or coming to, a theory of knowledge is achieved, determined by the assumptions in my metaphysical 'belief' of the nature of reality in (a). These assumptions necessarily tend to a predominantly inductive or mainly deductive theory of knowledge acquisition, which is reflected in my epistemology. Messo-ethical 'norms', like the sanctity of human life and freedom, are formulated at this level.
(c) "Ethos" is the attempt to form the world we live in, by growing an 'attitude' or participation in a mutually structured reality. All those who choose to participate in this reality, do it by 'taking responsibility for personal actions' in a social environment. More concrete micro-ethical 'codes of conduct', like monogamy and what we consider to be 'true and correct behaviour', is systematised into our 'dogma' at this level.
(d) "Praxis" is doing the 'right' thing. It is the behaviour resulting from systematising (a), (b) and (c) into a Gestalt, where the whole is more than the sum of the parts. This behavioural level is again the basis for "Wahrnemung", repeating the cycle on an new level. Most important is to understand that this cycle does not now start from the previous position of departure. There is a 'new awareness' of the praxis due to the previous stages in the cycle. The next cycle of "Wahrnemung" is elevated from the previous level of affective awareness to a deeper understanding. This is the basis for a new understanding of development. Development is far more than a 'mechanistic' process, by definition mechanistic processes all function and are 'essentially' closed systems. Development is by definition dependent on an inductive element. Another important point is that there is no start or end point in the cycle, every stage is on an elevated level from its previous position. Contrasted to thet, a circle has a start and an end, which has actually no development; it is only a reaffirmation of what was before in a stagnant fundamentalism.
Thus, a Paradigm can only be understood in the context of a Hermeneutical cycle within the Structure of the Paradigms. It supersedes mere interpretation or just bringing understanding. It implies that Paradigms are developmental by nature, moving in a hermeneutical cycle instead of a process of recurring mechanistic circles. Describing a paradigm as an era, epic, model, weltanschauung, or any other term is hardly more than merely renaming the concept of a paradigm to some other known concept, risking to be a tautological swapping of terms.
I hope it opens another perspective. Comments are welcome!
Lando L Lehmann
Primary source: '"Paradigm Development in Systematic Theology"', Dissertation at the University of South Africa (UNISA) by Lando L Lehmann, Nov 2004. It may now be downloaded from the Official UNISA Library Website as PDF. Use with due reference is allowed. Description: [[1]] Direct download when Description does not work: [[2]]
- On the whole I agree with this, although I think the wording is unnecessarily abstruse and, in places, obscure ("and/or/nor"?). Is your dissertation, or some variant on it, headed for peer reviewed publication? If not, this may be a bit perilously close to the kind of original research usually disparaged in Wikipedia, although I think it probably should be within the pale. Do you think you could reword what you wrote here in a style more appropriate to the general reader? If so, it's probably worth incorporating into the article. -- Jmabel | Talk 23:45, Jun 20, 2005 (UTC)
- I tried to clarify the text. Please suggest where there are still some unclear parts. -- LandoSr | Talk --LandoSr 14:38, 21 July 2005 (UTC)
- Added the download link of the Primary Source -- LandoSr | Talk 10:02, Aug 23, 2005 (CET)
- Added the direct link to the ETD Database. The description on the Website is a MS-IIS oriented website which does not support FireFox and Opera -- LandoSr | Talk LandoSr 12:11, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Dubious reference
The following "reference" was recently added to the article, without comment, by an anonymous contributor who does not appear to have made any other contributions to the article:
- Clarke, Thomas and Clegg, Stewart (eds) (2000) "Changing Paradigms" London: HarperCollins ISBN 0006387314
This is a business book. I seriously doubt that it was used as a reference in the article. If no one responds in the next week or so to say what in the article is referenced from this source, I would like to remove it. -- 02:33, August 31, 2005 (UTC)
[edit] Need to change subtitle
The subtitle "Examples" is both vague and misleading vis-a-vis the material in that section. This should be changed to something more appropriate. soverman 03:19 12 OCT 2005 (UTC)
[edit] Cut from article
It is also used in Medicine to name an action or "method of treatment" that would seem completely against to any rule or previous tought...and in principle appears even harmful...!! The best example would be when a patient comes to the ER with epistaxis (bleeding Nose) and you ask them to "blow their noses !!"...(this manouver is actually curative because dislodges the clot that keeps the nose bleeding ).J.Lentino MD ,FACS , COL ret US ARMY.
Oddly written, oddly cited, and I doubt it. -- Jmabel | Talk 05:55, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Newtonian Dynamics
From article: " (Newtonian mechanics is an excellent approximation for speeds that are slow compared to the speed of light)."
Is this a safe statement? Isn't this presuming that the MOND vs Dark Matter debate has resolved to the MOND side?
Excuse my ignorance if I'm missing the point. I haven't made any changes to the article, as I may well be just misreading or misunderstanding the point. --Leigh (24 Feb 2006)
[edit] Kuhn's meaning?
Kuhn's meaning was and is widely abused.- That's a little subjective, I took it out. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 166.82.11.64 (talk • contribs) 14 July 2006.
- Agreed. Though I think it is the generally held opinion, and it would be good to get some citations in here describing how the term is abused. - Jmabel | Talk 00:19, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Analogy
Does the paragraph that begins "Simple common analogy" really belong here? It's more or less accurate, but it's not at all our usual writing style. - Jmabel | Talk 06:07, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Paradigm vs examplar: final showdown
Although the article does make the important point that the original and the popular meanings of 'paradigm' differ, I think its unclear what the difference is. Was Kuhn's original use of 'paradigm' approximately identical to his use of 'exemplars'? With later popular usage of 'paradigm' shifting its focus towards the scientific theories in which those exemplars was rooted? In my opinion, the 'Scientific paradigm' section ought to begin with a clear explanation of Kuhn's original meaning and end with a short explanation of its current popular meaning, so the difference cannot be misunderstood. --AndersFeder 17:25, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Revert problems
Howdy, I'd just like to bring it to the attention of this talk page that User:24.167.133.55 has been repeatedly adding material that is not encyclopedic, and does not conform to WP:NPOV, or Wikipedia:No original research. I'm pretty sure if this persists, I will run up against the WP:3RR rule, and need some help here. --Haemo
