{"id":727,"date":"2016-06-24T15:02:48","date_gmt":"2016-06-24T15:02:48","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/www.potentialismtheory.com\/td\/?p=727"},"modified":"2017-10-31T15:38:50","modified_gmt":"2017-10-31T15:38:50","slug":"appendix-z63-paradigm-challenges","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.potentialismtheory.com\/td\/?p=727","title":{"rendered":"APPENDIX Z63: Paradigm Challenges"},"content":{"rendered":"
\n
\n
APPENDIX Z63:<\/div>\n
<\/div>\n
Paradigm Challenges<\/div>\n
Comments on W<\/span>ikipedia
\n review of the 1962 classic, The <\/span><\/div>\n
Structure of Scienti\ue0c4c Revolutions by Thomas S. Kuhn <\/span><\/div>\n
(Univ<\/span>. Of Chicago Press)\n <\/div>\n
[Note that Birnbaum proposes a new paradigm<\/div>\n
metaphysics, not a new paradigm scienti\ue0c4c theory;\n <\/div>\n
however<\/span>, the Bir<\/span>nbaum metaphysics fully wraps-around\n <\/div>\n
and integrates-with science.]<\/div>\n
Note to reader:<\/div>\n
We ar<\/span>e going to present
\n six excerpts from the Wikipedia\n <\/div>\n
article, followed by the Birnbaum \u201ctake\u201d.<\/div>\n
Excerpt (A):<\/div>\n
\u201c\u2026Kuhn argued for <\/span>an
\n episodic model <\/span>in which periods\n <\/div>\n
of such conceptual <\/span>continuity
\n in normal <\/span>science wer<\/span>e\n <\/div>\n
interrupted by periods <\/span>of
\n r<\/span>evolutionary science. During\n <\/div>\n
revolutions <\/span>in science
\n the <\/span>discovery of anomalies <\/span>leads\n <\/div>\n
to a whole <\/span>new paradigm
\n that <\/span>changes the rules <\/span>of the\n <\/div>\n<\/p><\/div>\n
\n
game and the <\/span>\u201cmap\u201d
\n dir<\/span>ecting new r<\/span>esearch, asks new\n <\/div>\n
questions of old <\/span>data,
\n and moves <\/span>beyond the puzzle-\n <\/div>\n
solving of normal <\/span>science\u2026.\u201d\n <\/div>\n
(A) The Birnbaum \u201ctake\u201d:<\/div>\n
A proposed paradigm shift \u201craises the stakes.\u201d<\/div>\n
If the new paradigm is more authentic than the prior<\/span>, the\n <\/div>\n
entire \ue0c4eld emerges mor<\/span>e
\n dynamic and overarching. If\n <\/div>\n
the new paradigm is less authentic, the entire \ue0c4eld
\n is set\n <\/div>\n
back.<\/div>\n
Excerpt (B):<\/div>\n
\u201c\u2026Kuhn\u2019<\/span>s <\/span>book argues <\/span>that the evolution <\/span>of scienti\ue0c4c\n <\/div>\n
theory does <\/span>not emerge
\n <\/span>from <\/span>the <\/span>straightforward\n <\/div>\n
accumulation of <\/span>facts,
\n but <\/span>rather fr<\/span>om <\/span>a set
\n <\/span>of <\/span>changing<\/span><\/div>\n
intellectual cir<\/span>cumstances
\n and <\/span>possibilities\u2026.\u201d\n <\/div>\n
(B) The Birnbaum \u201ctake\u201d:<\/div>\n
For my part, I would call this \u201ca conceptual
\n breakthr<\/span>ough\u201d\n <\/div>\n
Excerpt (C):<\/div>\n
\u201cCoherence\u201d<\/div>\n
One of the aims of science is to \ue0c4nd models that
\n will\n <\/div>\n
account for as many observations as possible
\n within\n <\/div>\n
a coherent framework\u2026.\u201d<\/div>\n<\/p><\/div>\n
\n
THE TRANSCENDENT DYNAMIC<\/div>\n
(C) The Birnbaum \u201ctake\u201d:<\/div>\n
W<\/span>ith an important caveat:
\n W<\/span>ith no serious \ue0c5aws or glaring\n <\/div>\n
gaps.<\/div>\n
Excerpt (D):<\/div>\n
\u201c\u2026As <\/span>a paradigm <\/span>is str<\/span>etched <\/span>to <\/span>its limits, <\/span>anomalies<\/span><\/div>\n
\u2014 <\/span>failures <\/span>of the <\/span>curr<\/span>ent paradigm
\n <\/span>to take <\/span>into account\n <\/div>\n
observed <\/span>phenomena \u2014
\n <\/span>accumulate\u2026. <\/span>But no <\/span>matter<\/span><\/div>\n
how <\/span>great <\/span>or numer<\/span>ous <\/span>the anomalies
\n <\/span>that persist, <\/span>Kuhn<\/span><\/div>\n
observes, <\/span>the practicing
\n <\/span>scientists will <\/span>not lose <\/span>faith
\n in\n <\/div>\n
the <\/span>established paradigm
\n <\/span>for as <\/span>long as <\/span>no cr<\/span>edible<\/span><\/div>\n
alternative is <\/span>available\u2026.\u201d\n <\/div>\n
\u201c\u2026In <\/span>any community <\/span>of scientists, <\/span>Kuhn states, <\/span>there<\/span> <\/span><\/div>\n
are <\/span>some individuals
\n <\/span>who ar<\/span>e <\/span>bolder than <\/span>most. These\n <\/div>\n
scientists, <\/span>judging that
\n <\/span>a crisis <\/span>exists, embark <\/span>on
\n what\n <\/div>\n
Thomas <\/span>Kuhn calls <\/span>revolutionary <\/span>science, <\/span>exploring<\/span> <\/span><\/div>\n
alternatives to <\/span>long-held,
\n <\/span>obvious-seeming <\/span>assumptions.<\/span><\/div>\n
Occasionally <\/span>this
\n generates <\/span>a rival <\/span>to the <\/span>established<\/span><\/div>\n
framework <\/span>of thought\u2026
\n <\/span>The majority <\/span>of the <\/span>scienti\ue0c4c<\/span><\/div>\n
community <\/span>will oppose
\n <\/span>any conceptual <\/span>change\u2026.\n <\/div>\n
Those <\/span>scientists who
\n <\/span>possess an <\/span>exceptional ability\n <\/div>\n
to <\/span>recognize <\/span>a theory\u2019<\/span>s potential <\/span>will
\n <\/span>be <\/span>the \ue0c4rst <\/span>whose<\/span><\/div>\n
prefer<\/span>ence is <\/span>likely <\/span>to <\/span>shift in <\/span>favor of <\/span>the challenging\n <\/div>\n
paradigm. <\/span>There <\/span>typically follows <\/span>a <\/span>period
\n <\/span>in which\n <\/div>\n
there <\/span>are <\/span>adherents <\/span>of both <\/span>paradigms.
\n In <\/span>time, <\/span>if <\/span>the<\/span><\/div>\n
challenging <\/span>paradigm is
\n <\/span>solidi\ue0c4ed and <\/span>uni\ue0c4ed, it <\/span>will<\/span><\/div>\n
replace <\/span>the old <\/span>paradigm, and <\/span>a <\/span>paradigm
\n <\/span>shift will <\/span>have<\/span><\/div>\n
occurred\u2026.\u201d<\/div>\n<\/p><\/div>\n
\n
(D) The Birnbaum \u201ctake\u201d:<\/div>\n
Note that typically the contemporaneous \u2018scienti\ue0c4c\n <\/div>\n
community\u2019 refuses to acknowledge the objectively\n <\/div>\n
unacceptable limitations of the old paradigm.<\/div>\n
Excerpt (E):<\/div>\n
\u201cIncommensurability\u201d<\/div>\n
\u201cAccording <\/span>to Kuhn,
\n <\/span>the scienti\ue0c4c <\/span>paradigms <\/span>preceding\n <\/div>\n
and succeeding <\/span>a
\n paradigm <\/span>shift ar<\/span>e <\/span>so
\n dif<\/span>ferent\n <\/div>\n
that their <\/span>theories
\n ar<\/span>e incommensurable <\/span>\u2014 <\/span>the
\n new\n <\/div>\n
paradigm cannot <\/span>be
\n pr<\/span>oven or <\/span>dispr<\/span>oven by
\n <\/span>the <\/span>rules of\n <\/div>\n
the old <\/span>paradigm, and
\n <\/span>vice versa\u2026. <\/span>The paradigm shift\n <\/div>\n
does not <\/span>merely <\/span>involve the <\/span>r<\/span>evision or
\n <\/span>transformation <\/span>of<\/span><\/div>\n
an individual <\/span>theory<\/span>, it <\/span>changes <\/span>the way <\/span>terminology <\/span>is<\/span><\/div>\n
de\ue0c4ned\u2026. The <\/span>new
\n theories <\/span>were <\/span>not, <\/span>as the
\n <\/span>scientists\n <\/div>\n
had pr<\/span>eviously thought,
\n <\/span>just extensions <\/span>of <\/span>old
\n theories,\n <\/div>\n
but wer<\/span>e instead <\/span>completely new <\/span>world <\/span>views\u2026.
\n It <\/span>is\n <\/div>\n
simply not <\/span>possible,
\n accor<\/span>ding to <\/span>Kuhn, <\/span>to
\n construct <\/span>an\n <\/div>\n
impartial <\/span>language that
\n <\/span>can be <\/span>used to <\/span>perform a
\n <\/span>neutral<\/span> <\/span><\/div>\n
comparison between <\/span>con\ue0c5icting
\n paradigms, <\/span>because<\/span> <\/span><\/div>\n
the very <\/span>terms used
\n <\/span>are <\/span>integral <\/span>to the <\/span>r<\/span>espective<\/span><\/div>\n
paradigms\u2026 The <\/span>competition
\n between <\/span>paradigms is\n <\/div>\n
not the <\/span>sort of <\/span>battle that <\/span>can be r<\/span>esolved
\n by <\/span>proofs.\u201d\n <\/div>\n
Scientists subscribing <\/span>to
\n dif<\/span>ferent <\/span>paradigms <\/span>end up\n <\/div>\n
talking past <\/span>one
\n another\u2026.\u201d\n <\/div>\n
(E) The Birnbaum \u201ctake\u201d:<\/div>\n
I might say slightly differ<\/span>ently:\n <\/div>\n
201 APPENDIX<\/span><\/span>\n <\/div>\n<\/p><\/div>\n
\n
<\/div>\n
The new can effectively challenge the old.<\/div>\n
<\/span>On the merits.<\/div>\n
<\/span>The old is unable to
\n challenge the new on the merits.\n <\/div>\n
<\/span>The new cannot \u2018prove\u2019
\n the new \u2013 yet.\n <\/div>\n
Excerpt (F):<\/div>\n
\u201c\u2026Kuhn saw that for a new candidate for paradigm\n <\/div>\n
to be accepted by a scienti\ue0c4c community<\/span>…\n <\/div>\n
1) the new candidate must seem to resolve some<\/div>\n
outstanding and generally recognized pr<\/span>oblem that\n <\/div>\n
can be met in no other way<\/span>.\n <\/div>\n
2) the new paradigm must promise to pr<\/span>eserve a\n <\/div>\n
relatively large part of the concr<\/span>ete problem solving\n <\/div>\n
activity that has accrued to science through its\n <\/div>\n
predecessors.<\/div>\n
3) overall Kuhn maintained that the new paradigm\n <\/div>\n
must also solve more pr<\/span>oblems
\n than its predecessor<\/span>,\n <\/div>\n
which therefor<\/span>e entailed
\n that the number of newly\n <\/div>\n
solved problems must be gr<\/span>eater
\n than those solved in\n <\/div>\n
the old paradigm\u2026.\u201d<\/div>\n
(F) The Birnbaum \u201ctake\u201d:<\/div>\n
All three ar<\/span>e true in
\n Summa\u2019<\/span>s case.\n <\/div>\n<\/p><\/div>\n<\/div>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

APPENDIX Z63: Paradigm Challenges Comments on Wikipedia review of the 1962 classic, The Structure of Scienti\ue0c4c Revolutions by Thomas S. Kuhn (Univ. Of Chicago Press) [Note that Birnbaum proposes a new paradigm metaphysics, not a new paradigm scienti\ue0c4c theory; however, the Birnbaum metaphysics fully wraps-around and integrates-with science.] Note to reader: We are going to […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":2,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"jetpack_publicize_message":"","jetpack_is_tweetstorm":false,"jetpack_publicize_feature_enabled":true},"categories":[1],"tags":[],"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.potentialismtheory.com\/td\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/727"}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.potentialismtheory.com\/td\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.potentialismtheory.com\/td\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.potentialismtheory.com\/td\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/users\/2"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.potentialismtheory.com\/td\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcomments&post=727"}],"version-history":[{"count":2,"href":"https:\/\/www.potentialismtheory.com\/td\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/727\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":735,"href":"https:\/\/www.potentialismtheory.com\/td\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/727\/revisions\/735"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.potentialismtheory.com\/td\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fmedia&parent=727"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.potentialismtheory.com\/td\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcategories&post=727"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.potentialismtheory.com\/td\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Ftags&post=727"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}