Dear students,
This is detail explanation of what is paradigm shift? The explanation is also have suitable example. If you have any question then please let me know here in comment or in the class.
Please also note that this is collection and not written by me, except some modification and/or addition. However, the arguments and facts were verified with original sources.
paradigm shift (पैराडाइम शिफ्ट)
http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/english/paradigm-shift
Definition of paradigm shift in English:
Line breaks: para|digm shift Pronunciation:
Noun fundamental change in approach or underlying assumptions
Example Sentences
a. Geophysical evidence supporting Wegener’s theory led to a rapid paradigm shift in the earth sciences
b. Within twenty years a fundamental paradigm shift had occurred in the ways in which informed observers discussed human existence.
c. The Joburg 2030 strategy marks an important paradigm shift in our approach to planning.
d. Second, it takes a paradigm shift to transition from traditional group insurance to a health and welfare trust.
Origin 1970s: term used in the writings of Thomas S. Kuhn (1922–96), philosopher of science.
Paradigm shift
A paradigm shift (or revolutionary science) is, according to Thomas Kuhn, in his influential book The Structure of Scientific Revolutions (1962), a change in the basic assumptions, or paradigms, within the ruling theory of science. It is in contrast to his idea of normal science. According to Kuhn, "Aparadigm is what members of a scientific community, and they alone, share" (The Essential Tension, 1977). Unlike a normal scientist, Kuhn held, "a student in the humanities has constantly before him a number of competing and incommensurable solutions to these problems, solutions that he must ultimately examine for himself" (The Structure of Scientific Revolutions).
Once a paradigm shift is complete, a scientist cannot, for example, reject the germ theory of disease to posit the possibility that miasma causes disease or reject modern physics and optics to posit that aether carries light. In contrast, a critic in the humanities can choose to adopt an array of stances (e.g., Marxist criticism, Freudian criticism, Deconstruction, 19th-century-style literary criticism), which may be more or less fashionable during any given period but all regarded as legitimate. Since the 1960s, the term has also been used in numerous non-scientific contexts to describe a profound change in a fundamental model or perception of events, even though Kuhn himself restricted the use of the term to the hard sciences. Compare as a structured form of Zeitgeist.
Contents
1 Kuhnian paradigm shifts
2 Science and paradigm shift
3 Examples of paradigm shifts
3.1 Natural sciences
3.2 Social sciences
4 Marketing
5 Other uses
6 See also
7 References
8 External links
Kuhnian paradigm shifts
Kuhn used the duck-rabbit optical illusion to demonstrate the way in which a paradigm shift could cause one to see the same information in an entirely different way.
An epistemological paradigm shift was called a "scientific revolution" by epistemologist and historian of scienceThomas Kuhn in his book The Structure of Scientific Revolutions.
A scientific revolution occurs, according to Kuhn, when scientists encounter anomalies that cannot be explained by the universally accepted paradigm within which scientific progress has thereto been made. The paradigm, in Kuhn's view, is not simply the current theory, but the entire worldview in which it exists, and all of the implications which come with it. This is based on features of landscape of knowledge that scientists can identify around them.
There are anomalies for all paradigms, Kuhn maintained, that are brushed away as acceptable levels of error, or simply ignored and not dealt with (a principal argument Kuhn uses to reject Karl Popper's model of falsifiability as the key force involved in scientific change). Rather, according to Kuhn, anomalies have various levels of significance to the practitioners of science at the time. To put it in the context of early 20th century physics, some scientists found the problems with calculating Mercury's perihelion more troubling than the Michelson-Morley experiment results, and some the other way around. Kuhn's model of scientific change differs here, and in many places, from that of the logical positivists in that it puts an enhanced emphasis on the individual humans involved as scientists, rather than abstracting science into a purely logical or philosophical venture.
When enough significant anomalies have accrued against a current paradigm, the scientific discipline is thrown into a state of crisis, according to Kuhn. During this crisis, new ideas, perhaps ones previously discarded, are tried. Eventually a new paradigm is formed, which gains its own new followers, and an intellectual "battle" takes place between the followers of the new paradigm and the hold-outs of the old paradigm. Again, for early 20th century physics, the transition between the Maxwellian electromagnetic worldview and the Einsteinian Relativistic worldview was neither instantaneous nor calm, and instead involved a protracted set of "attacks," both with empirical data as well as rhetorical or philosophical arguments, by both sides, with the Einsteinian theory winning out in the long run. Again, the weighing of evidence and importance of new data was fit through the human sieve: some scientists found the simplicity of Einstein's equations to be most compelling, while some found them more complicated than the notion of Maxwell's aether which they banished. Some found Eddington's photographs of light bending around the sun to be compelling, while some questioned their accuracy and meaning. Sometimes the convincing force is just time itself and the human toll it takes, Kuhn said, using a quote from Max Planck: "a new scientific truth does not triumph by convincing its opponents and making them see the light, but rather because its opponents eventually die, and a new generation grows up that is familiar with it."[1]
After a given discipline has changed from one paradigm to another, this is called, in Kuhn's terminology, a scientific revolution or a paradigm shift. It is often this final conclusion, the result of the long process, that is meant when the term paradigm shift is used colloquially: simply the (often radical) change of worldview, without reference to the specificities of Kuhn's historical argument.
Science and paradigm shift
A common misinterpretation of paradigms is the belief that the discovery of paradigm shifts and the dynamic nature of science (with its many opportunities for subjective judgments by scientists) are a case for relativism:[2] the view that all kinds of belief systems are equal. Kuhn vehemently denies this interpretation[3] and states that when a scientific paradigm is replaced by a new one, albeit through a complex social process, the new one is always better, not just different.
These claims of relativism are, however, tied to another claim that Kuhn does at least somewhat endorse: that the language and theories of different paradigms cannot be translated into one another or rationally evaluated against one another — that they are incommensurable. This gave rise to much talk of different peoples and cultures having radically different worldviews or conceptual schemes — so different that whether or not one was better, they could not be understood by one another. However, the philosopher Donald Davidson published a highly regarded essay in 1974, "On the Very Idea of a Conceptual Scheme" (Proceedings and Addresses of the American Philosophical Association, Vol. 47, (1973-1974), pp. 5–20) arguing that the notion that any languages or theories could be incommensurable with one another was itself incoherent. If this is correct, Kuhn's claims must be taken in a weaker sense than they often are. Furthermore, the hold of the Kuhnian analysis on social science has long been tenuous with the wide application of multi-paradigmatic approaches in order to understand complex human behaviour (see for example John Hassard, Sociology and Organization Theory: Positivism, Paradigm and Postmodernity. Cambridge University Press, 1993, ISBN 0521350344.)
Paradigm shifts tend to be most dramatic in sciences that appear to be stable and mature, as in physics at the end of the 19th century. At that time, physics seemed to be a discipline filling in the last few details of a largely worked-out system. In 1900, Lord Kelvin famously told an assemblage of physicists at theBritish Association for the Advancement of Science, "There is nothing new to be discovered in physics now. All that remains is more and more precise measurement."[4] Five years later, Albert Einstein published his paper on special relativity, which challenged the very simple set of rules laid down byNewtonian mechanics, which had been used to describe force and motion for over two hundred years.
In The Structure of Scientific Revolutions, Kuhn wrote, "Successive transition from one paradigm to another via revolution is the usual developmental pattern of mature science." (p. 12) Kuhn's idea was itself revolutionary in its time, as it caused a major change in the way that academics talk about science. Thus, it could be argued that it caused or was itself part of a "paradigm shift" in the history and sociology of science. However, Kuhn would not recognise such a paradigm shift. In the social sciences, people can still use earlier ideas to discuss the history of science.
Philosophers and historians of science, including Kuhn himself, ultimately accepted a modified version of Kuhn's model, which synthesizes his original view with the gradualist model that preceded it.
Examples of paradigm shift
Natural sciences
Some of the "classical cases" of Kuhnian paradigm shifts in science are:
The transition in cosmology from a Ptolemaic cosmology to a Copernican one.
The transition in optics from geometrical optics to physical optics.
The transition in mechanics from Aristotelian mechanics to classical mechanics.
The acceptance of the theory of biogenesis, that all life comes from life, as opposed to the theory of spontaneous generation, which began in the 17th century and was not complete until the 19th century with Pasteur.
The acceptance of the work of Andreas Vesalius, whose work De humani corporis fabrica corrected the numerous errors in the previously-held system created by Galen.
The transition between the Maxwellian Electromagnetic worldview and the Einsteinian Relativistic worldview.
The transition between the worldview of Newtonian physics and the Einsteinian Relativistic worldview.
The development of quantum mechanics, which replaced classical mechanics at microscopic scales.
The acceptance of plate tectonics as the explanation for large-scale geologic changes.
The development of absolute dating.
The acceptance of Lavoisier's theory of chemical reactions and combustion in place of phlogiston theory, known as the Chemical Revolution.
The acceptance of Mendelian inheritance, as opposed to pangenesis in the early 20th century
Social sciences
In Kuhn's view, the existence of a single reigning paradigm is characteristic of the sciences, while philosophy and much of social science were characterized by a "tradition of claims, counterclaims, and debates over fundamentals."[5] Others have applied Kuhn's concept of paradigm shift to the social sciences.
The movement, known as the Cognitive revolution, away from Behaviourist approaches to psychological study and the acceptance of cognition as central to studying human behaviour.
The Keynesian Revolution is typically viewed as a major shift in macroeconomics.[6] According to John Kenneth Galbraith, Say's Law dominated economic thought prior to Keynes for over a century, and the shift to Keynesianism was difficult. Economists who contradicted the law, which implied that underemployment and underinvestment (coupled with oversaving) were virtually impossible, risked losing their careers.[7] In his magnum opus, Keynes cited one of his predecessors, John Atkinson Hobson,[8] who was repeatedly denied positions at universities for his heretical theory.
Later, the movement for Monetarism over Keynesianism marked a second divisive shift. Monetarists held that fiscal policy was not effective for stabilizing inflation, that it was solely a monetary phenomenon, in contrast to the Keynesian view of the time was that both fiscal and monetary policy were important. Keynesians later adopted much of the Monetarists view of the quantity theory of money and shifting Philips curve, theories they initially rejected.[9]
Marketing
In the later part of the 1990s, 'paradigm shift' emerged as a buzzword, popularized as marketing speak and appearing more frequently in print and publication.[10] In his book Mind The Gaffe, author Larry Trask advises readers to refrain from using it, and to use caution when reading anything that contains the phrase. It is referred to in several articles and books[11][12] as abused and overused to the point of becoming meaningless.
Other uses
The term "paradigm shift" has found uses in other contexts, representing the notion of a major change in a certain thought-pattern — a radical change in personal beliefs, complex systems or organizations, replacing the former way of thinking or organizing with a radically different way of thinking or organizing:
M. L. Handa, a professor of sociology in education at O.I.S.E. University of Toronto, Canada, developed the concept of a paradigm within the context of social sciences. He defines what he means by "paradigm" and introduces the idea of a "social paradigm". In addition, he identifies the basic component of any social paradigm. Like Kuhn, he addresses the issue of changing paradigms, the process popularly known as "paradigm shift." In this respect, he focuses on the social circumstances which precipitate such a shift. Relatedly, he addresses how that shift affects social institutions, including the institution of education.
The concept has been developed for technology and economics in the identification of new techno-economic paradigms as changes in technological systems that have a major influence on the behaviour of the entire economy (Carlota Perez; earlier work only on technological paradigms by Giovanni Dosi). This concept is linked to Joseph Schumpeter's idea of creative destruction. Examples include the move to mass production and the introduction of microelectronics.[citation needed]
In the arena of political science, the concept has been applied to the ethos of war. Evolutionary biologist Judith Hand, in a paper entitled "To Abolish War," argued that a paradigm shift is possible from a global ethos that operates on the assumption that war is an inevitable aspect of human nature to a global ethos that rejects war under any circumstances.[13]
Two photographs of the Earth from space, "Earthrise" (1968) and "The Blue Marble" (1972), are thought to have helped to usher in the environmentalistmovement which gained great prominence in the years immediately following distribution of those images.[14][15]
Hans Küng applies Thomas Kuhn's theory of paradigm change to the entire history of Christian thought and theology. He identifies six historical "macromodels": 1) the apocalyptic paradigm of primitive Christianity, 2) the Hellenistic paradigm of the patristic period, 3) the medieval Roman Catholic paradigm, 4) the Protestant (Reformation) paradigm, 5) the modern Enlightenment paradigm, and 6) the emerging ecumenical paradigm. He also discusses five analogies between natural science and theology in relation to paradigm shifts. Küng addresses paradigm change in his books, Paradigm Change in Theology[16] and Theology for the Third Millennium: An Ecumenical View.[17]
References
1. Jump up^ Quoted in Thomas Kuhn, The Structure of Scientific Revolutions (1970 ed.): p. 150.
2. Jump up^ Sankey, Howard (1997) "Kuhn's ontological relativism," in Issues and Images in the Philosophy of Science: Scientific and Philosophical Essays in Honour of Azarya Polikarov, edited by Dimitri Ginev and Robert S. Cohen. Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic, 1997. Boston studies in the philosophy of science, vol. 192, pp. 305-320. ISBN 0792344448
3. Jump up^ Thomas Kuhn, The Structure of Scientific Revolutions (3rd ed.): p. 199.
4. Jump up^ Weisstein, Eric W.. "Eric Weisstein's World of science". Wolfram Research. Retrieved January 2, 2013.
5. Jump up^ Kuhn, Thomas N. (1972) [1970]. "Logic of Discovery or Psychology of Research". In Lakatos, Imre; Musgrave, Alan. Criticism and the Growth of Knowledge (second ed.). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. p. 6.ISBN 0-521-09623-5
6. Jump up^ David Laidler. Fabricating the Keynesian Revolution.
7. Jump up^ Galbraith, John Kenneth. (1975). Money: Whence It Came, Where It Went, p. 223. Houghton Mifflin.
8. Jump up^ Keynes, John Maynard. The General Theory of Employment, Interest, and Money, p. 366. "Mr. Hobson has flung himself with unflagging, but almost unavailing, ardour and courage against the ranks of orthodoxy. Though it is so completely forgotten to-day, the publication of this book marks, in a sense, an epoch in economic thought."
9. Jump up^ Bordo, Michael D., Schwartz, Anna J. (2008). Monetary Economic Research at the St. Louis Fed During Ted Balbach's Tenure as Research Director. The Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis Review.
10. Jump up^ Robert Fulford, Globe and Mail (June 5, 1999).http://www.robertfulford.com/Paradigm.html Retrieved on 2008-04-25.
11. Jump up^ Cnet.com's Top 10 Buzzwords
12. Jump up^ "The Complete Idiot's Guide to a Smart Vocabulary" p142-143, author: Paul McFedries publisher: Alpha; 1st edition (May 7, 2001), ISBN 978-0-02-863997-0
13. Jump up^ Hand, Judith L. (2010). "To Abolish War". Journal of Aggression, Conflict, and Peace Research 2 (4): 44–56. doi:10.5042/jacpr.2010.0536.
14. Jump up^ Schroeder, Christopher H. "Global Warming and the Problem of Policy Innovation: Lessons from the Early Environmental Movement". 2009.http://www.lclark.edu/org/envtl/objects/39-2_Schroeder.pdf
15. Jump up^ See also Stewart Brand#NASA image of Earth
16. Jump up^ Kung, Hans & Tracy, David (ed). Paradigm Change in Theology. New York: Crossroad, 1989.
17. Jump up^ Küng, Hans. Theology for the Third Millennium: An Ecumenical View. New York: Anchor Books, 1990.
(Note: Above article is not written by me rather downloaded and edited from Wikipedia on February 18, 2014. However, the arguments and facts were verified with original sources.)
=====================
THIS IS END OF ARTILE ONE
=====================
=====================
ARTIEL TWO STARTS HERE
=====================
Paradigm (पैराडाइम)
Here first we see the meanings in dictionary and then its original and social sciences uses.
Oxford Dictionary
Definition of paradigm in English:
Paradigm
Line breaks: para|digm Pronunciation: /ˈparədʌɪm
Noun
1 - a typical example or pattern of something; a pattern or model
Example Sentences
a. Society’s paradigm of the ‘ideal woman’
b. 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.
c. This present campaign is a paradigm of Washington's pattern of accusing others of doing what Washington is planning to do or has already done.
d. He says a creative leap is a new pattern, a new paradigm, a new way of organizing information and energy that has nothing to do with the previous pattern.
1.1 - a world view underlying the theories and methodology of a particular scientific subject
Example Sentences
a. The discovery of universal gravitation became the paradigm of successful science
b. This clash between scientific ideas and paradigms we label science politics.
c. Deism reflected the scientific paradigm of the times in which the world inexorably and thoroughly followed strict mathematical laws of nature.
d. The ID folks are constantly telling us that evolution is failing as a scientific paradigm, and that scientists are jumping ship in droves.
2. Linguistics a set of linguistic items that form mutually exclusive choices in particular syntactic roles
Example Sentences
a. English determiners form a paradigm: we can say ‘a book’ or ‘his book’ but not ‘a his book’Often contrasted with syntagm.
b. In linguistics, a paradigm is a set of systematically alternating items. A paradigm is complementary to a syntagm, which is a set of items used in systematic combination.
3 (in the traditional grammar of Latin, Greek, and other inflected languages) a table of all the inflected forms of a particular verb, noun, or adjective, serving as a model for other words of the same conjugation or declension.
Example Sentences
a. And of course to do that, you do in fact need to learn all those paradigms of verbs and nouns, the amo, amas, amat stuff.
b. Reformers rejected the teaching of modern languages through grammatical paradigms, specimen sentences, and word lists.
c. Chinese has no case distinctions or gender distinctions in the inflectional paradigm of its third person singular pronoun.
Origin - late 15th century: via late Latin from Greek paradeigma, from paradeiknunai 'show side by side', from para- 'beside' + deiknunai 'to show'.
Spelling help Remember that the ending of paradigm is spelled -digm.
Paradigm
In science and epistemology (the theory of knowledge), aparadigm /ˈpærədaɪm/ is a distinct concept or thought pattern.
Contents
1 Scientific paradigm
2 Paradigm shifts
2.1 Paradigm paralysis
3 Incommensurability
4 Subsequent developments
4.1 Imre Lakatos and research programmes
4.2 Larry Laudan: Dormant anomalies, fading credibility, and research traditions
5 Concept of paradigm and the social sciences
6 Etymology
7 Other uses
8 Notes
9 References and links
10 See also
Scientific paradigm
The Oxford English Dictionary defines the basic meaning of the term paradigm as "a typical example or pattern of something; a pattern or model".[1] The historian of scienceThomas Kuhn gave it its contemporary meaning when he adopted the word to refer to the set of practices that define a scientific discipline at any particular period of time. In his book The Structure of Scientific Revolutions Kuhn defines a scientific paradigm as: "universally recognized scientific achievements that, for a time, provide model problems and solutions for a community of practitioners,[2] i.e.,
· what is to be observed and scrutinized
· the kind of questions that are supposed to be asked and probed for answers in relation to this subject
· how these questions are to be structured
· how the results of scientific investigations should be interpreted
· how is an experiment to be conducted, and whatequipment is available to conduct the experiment.
In The Structure of Scientific Revolutions, Kuhn saw the sciences as going through alternating periods of normal science, when an existing model of reality dominates a protracted period of puzzle-solving, and revolution, when the model of reality itself undergoes sudden drastic change. Paradigms have two aspects. Firstly, within normal science, the term refers to the set of exemplary experiments that are likely to be copied or emulated. Secondly, underpinning this set of exemplars are shared preconceptions, made prior to – and conditioning – the collection of evidence.[3] These preconceptions embody both hidden assumptions and elements that he describes as quasi-metaphysical;[4] the interpretations of the paradigm may vary among individual scientists.[5]
Kuhn was at pains to point out that the rationale for the choice of exemplars is a specific way of viewing reality: that view and the status of "exemplar" are mutually reinforcing. For well-integrated members of a particular discipline, its paradigm is so convincing that it normally renders even the possibility of alternatives unconvincing and counter-intuitive. Such a paradigm is opaque, appearing to be a direct view of the bedrock of reality itself, and obscuring the possibility that there might be other, alternative imageries hidden behind it. The conviction that the current paradigm is reality tends to disqualify evidence that might undermine the paradigm itself; this in turn leads to a build-up of unreconciled anomalies. It is the latter that is responsible for the eventual revolutionary overthrow of the incumbent paradigm, and its replacement by a new one. Kuhn used the expression paradigm shift (see below) for this process, and likened it to the perceptual change that occurs when our interpretation of an ambiguous image "flips over" from one state to another.[6] (The rabbit-duck illusion is an example: it is not possible to see both the rabbit and the duck simultaneously.) This is significant in relation to the issue of incommensurability (see below).
A currently accepted paradigm would be the standard model of physics. The scientific method would allow for orthodox scientific investigations into phenomena which might contradict or disprove the standard model; however grant funding would be proportionately more difficult to obtain for such experiments, depending on the degree of deviation from the accepted standard model theory which the experiment would be expected to test for. To illustrate the point, an experiment to test for the mass of neutrinos or the decay of protons (small departures from the model) would be more likely to receive money than experiments to look for the violation of the conservation of momentum, or ways to engineer reverse time travel.
Mechanisms similar to the original Kuhnian paradigm have been invoked in various disciplines other than the philosophy of science. These include: the idea of major cultural themes,[7][8] worldviews (and see below),ideologies, and mindsets. They have somewhat similar meanings that apply to smaller and larger scale examples of disciplined thought. In addition, Michel Foucault used the terms episteme and discourse, mathesis and taxinomia, for aspects of a "paradigm" in Kuhn's original sense.
Paradigm shifts
In The Structure of Scientific Revolutions, Kuhn wrote that "Successive transition from one paradigm to another via revolution is the usual developmental pattern of mature science." (p. 12)
Paradigm shifts tend to be most dramatic in sciences that appear to be stable and mature, as in physics at the end of the 19th century. At that time, a statement generally attributed to physicist Lord Kelvin famously claimed, "There is nothing new to be discovered in physics now. All that remains is more and more precise measurement."[9] Five years later, Albert Einstein published his paper on special relativity, which challenged the very simple set of rules laid down by Newtonian mechanics, which had been used to describe force and motion for over two hundred years. In this case, the new paradigm reduces the old to a special case in the sense that Newtonian mechanics is still a good model for approximation for speeds that are slow compared to the speed of light. Philosophers and historians of science, including Kuhn himself, ultimately accepted a modified version of Kuhn's model, which synthesizes his original view with the gradualist model that preceded it. Kuhn's original model is now generally seen as too limited.
Kuhn's idea was itself revolutionary in its time, as it caused a major change in the way that academics talk about science. Thus, it may be that it caused or was itself part of a "paradigm shift" in the history and sociology of science. However, Kuhn would not recognize such a paradigm shift. Being in the social sciences, people can still use earlier ideas to discuss the history of science.
Paradigm paralysis
Perhaps the greatest barrier to a paradigm shift, in some cases, is the reality of paradigm paralysis: the inability or refusal to see beyond the current models of thinking.[10]This is similar to what psychologists term Confirmation bias. Examples include rejection of Galileo's theory of aheliocentric universe, the discovery of electrostaticphotography, xerography and the quartz clock.
Incommensurability
Kuhn pointed out that it could be difficult to assess whether a particular paradigm shift had actually led to progress, in the sense of explaining more facts, explaining more important facts, or providing better explanations, because the understanding of "more important", "better", etc. changed with the paradigm. The two versions of reality are thus incommensurable. Kuhn's version ofincommensurability has an important psychological dimension; this is apparent from his analogy between a paradigm shift and the flip-over involved in some optical illusions.[11] However, he subsequently diluted his commitment to incommensurability considerably, partly in the light of other studies of scientific development that did not involve revolutionary change.[12] One of the examples that Kuhn used was the change in the style of chemical investigation that followed the work of Lavoisier on atomic theory in the late 18th Century as an example of incommensurability.[6] In this change, the focus had shifted from the bulk properties of matter (such as hardness, colour, reactivity, etc.) to studies of atomic weights and quantitative studies of reactions. He suggested that it was impossible to make the comparison needed to judge which body of knowledge was better or more advanced. However, this change in research style (and paradigm) eventually (after more than a century) led to a theory of atomic structure that accounts well for the bulk properties of matter; see, for example, Brady's General Chemistry.[13] This ability of science to back off, move sideways, and then advance is characteristic of the natural sciences,[14] but contrasts with the position in some social sciences, notably economics.[15]
This apparent ability does not guarantee that the account is veridical at any one time, of course, and most modern philosophers of science are fallibilists. However, members of other disciplines do see the issue of incommensurability as a much greater obstacle to evaluations of "progress"; see, for example, Martin Slattery's Key Ideas in Sociology.[16][17]
Subsequent developments
Opaque Kuhnian paradigms and paradigm shifts do exist. A few years after the discovery of the mirror-neurons that provide a hard-wired basis for the human capacity for empathy, the scientists involved were unable to identify the incidents that had directed their attention to the issue. Over the course of the investigation, their language and metaphors had changed so that they themselves could no longer interpret all of their own earlier laboratory notes and records.[18]
Imre Lakatos and research programmes
However, many instances exist in which change in a discipline's core model of reality has happened in a more evolutionary manner, with individual scientists exploring the usefulness of alternatives in a way that would not be possible if they were constrained by a paradigm. Imre Lakatos suggested (as an alternative to Kuhn's formulation) that scientists actually work within research programmes.[19] In Lakatos' sense, a research programme is a sequence of problems, placed in order of priority. This set of priorities, and the associated set of preferred techniques, is the positive heuristic of a programme. Each programme also has a negative heuristic; this consists of a set of fundamental assumptions that – temporarily, at least – takes priority over observational evidence when the two appear to conflict.
This latter aspect of research programmes is inherited from Kuhn's work on paradigms,[citation needed] and represents an important departure from the elementary account of how science works. According to this, science proceeds through repeated cycles of observation, induction, hypothesis-testing, etc., with the test of consistency with empirical evidence being imposed at each stage. Paradigms and research programmes allow anomalies to be set aside, where there is reason to believe that they arise from incomplete knowledge (about either the substantive topic, or some aspect of the theories implicitly used in making observations).
Larry Laudan: Dormant anomalies, fading credibility, and research traditions
Larry Laudan [20] has also made two important contributions to the debate. Laudan believed that something akin to paradigms exist in the social sciences (Kuhn had contested this, see below); he referred to these asresearch traditions. Laudan noted that some anomalies become "dormant", if they survive a long period during which no competing alternative has shown itself capable of resolving the anomaly. He also presented cases in which a dominant paradigm had withered away because its lost credibility when viewed against changes in the wider intellectual milieu.
Concept of paradigm and the social sciences
Kuhn himself did not consider the concept of paradigm as appropriate for the social sciences. He explains in his preface to The Structure of Scientific Revolutions that he concocted the concept of paradigm precisely in order to distinguish the social from the natural sciences (p.x). He wrote this book at the Palo Alto Center for Scholars, surrounded by social scientists, when he observed that they were never in agreement on theories or concepts. He explains that he wrote this book precisely to show that there are no, nor can there be any, paradigms in the social sciences. Mattei Dogan, a French sociologist, in his article "Paradigms in the Social Sciences," develops Kuhn's original thesis that there are no paradigms at all in the social sciences since the concepts are polysemic, the deliberate mutual ignorance between scholars and the proliferation of schools in these disciplines. Dogan provides many examples of the non-existence of paradigms in the social sciences in his essay, particularly in sociology, political science and political anthropology.
However, both Kuhn's original work and Dogan's commentary are directed at disciplines that are defined by conventional labels (e.g., "sociology"). While it is true that such broad groupings in the social sciences are usually not based on a Kuhnian paradigm, each of the competing sub-disciplines may still be underpinned by a paradigm, research programme, research tradition, and/ or professional imagery. These structures will be motivating research, providing it with an agenda, defining what is - and what is not - anomalous evidence, and inhibiting debate with other groups that fall under the same broad disciplinary label. (A good example is provided by the contrast betweenSkinnerian behaviourism and Personal Construct Theory, PCT, within psychology. The most significant of the many ways in which these two sub-disciplines of psychology differ concerns meanings and intentions. In PCT, these are seen as the central concern of psychology; in behaviourism, they are not scientific evidence at all, because they cannot be directly observed.) These considerations explains the conflict between the Kuhn/ Dogan view, and the views of others (including Larry Laudan, see above), who do apply these concepts to social sciences.
Handa,[21] M.L. (1986) introduced the idea of "social paradigm" in the context of social sciences. He identified the basic components of a social paradigm. Like Kuhn, Handa addressed the issue of changing paradigm; the process popularly known as "paradigm shift". In this respect, he focused on social circumstances that precipitate such a shift and the effects of the shift on social institutions, including the institution of education. This broad shift in the social arena, in turn, changes the way the individual perceives reality.
Another use of the word paradigm is in the sense of "worldview". For example, in social science, the term is used to describe the set of experiences, beliefs and values that affect the way an individual perceives reality and responds to that perception. Social scientists have adopted the Kuhnian phrase "paradigm shift" to denote a change in how a given society goes about organizing and understanding reality. A "dominant paradigm" refers to the values, or system of thought, in a society that are most standard and widely held at a given time. Dominant paradigms are shaped both by the community's cultural background and by the context of the historical moment. The following are conditions that facilitate a system of thought to become an accepted dominant paradigm:
· Professional organizations that give legitimacy to the paradigm
· Dynamic leaders who introduce and purport the paradigm
· Journals and editors who write about the system of thought. They both disseminate the information essential to the paradigm and give the paradigm legitimacy
· Government agencies who give credence to the paradigm
· Educators who propagate the paradigm's ideas by teaching it to students
· Conferences conducted that are devoted to discussing ideas central to the paradigm
· Media coverage
· Lay groups, or groups based around the concerns of lay persons, that embrace the beliefs central to the paradigm
· Sources of funding to further research on the paradigm
Etymology
Paradigm comes from Greek "παράδειγμα" (paradeigma), "pattern, example, sample"[22] from the verb "παραδείκνυμι" (paradeiknumi), "exhibit, represent, expose"[23] and that from "παρά" (para), "beside, beyond"[24] + "δείκνυμι" (deiknumi), "to show, to point out".[25]
In rhetoric, Paradeigma is known as a type of proof. The purpose of paradeigma is to provide an audience with an illustration of similar occurrences. This illustration is not meant to take the audience to a conclusion, however, it is used to help guide them there. A personal accountant is a good comparison of paradeigma to explain how it is meant to guide the audience. A personal accountant's job is not to tell you what and what not to spend your money on; however, they are there to help guide you and your spendings based on financial goals you may have.Anaximenes defined paradeigma as, "actions that have occurred previously and are similar to, or the opposite of, those which we are now discussing."[26]
The original Greek term παράδειγμα (paradeigma) was used in Greek texts such as Plato's Timaeus (28A) as the model or the pattern that the Demiurge (god) used to create the cosmos. The term had a technical meaning in the field of grammar: the 1900 Merriam-Webster dictionary defines its technical use only in the context of grammar or, in rhetoric, as a term for an illustrative parable or fable. In linguistics, Ferdinand de Saussure used paradigm to refer to a class of elements with similarities.
The Merriam-Webster Online dictionary defines this usage as "a philosophical and theoretical framework of a scientific school or discipline within which theories, laws, and generalizations and the experiments performed in support of them are formulated; broadly: a philosophical or theoretical framework of any kind."[27]
The Oxford Dictionary of Philosophy attributes the following description of the term to Thomas Kuhn's The Structure of Scientific Revolutions:
Kuhn suggests that certain scientific works, such as Newton's Principia or John Dalton's New System of Chemical Philosophy (1808), provide an open-ended resource: a framework of concepts, results, and procedures within which subsequent work is structured. Normal science proceeds within such a framework or paradigm. A paradigm does not impose a rigid or mechanical approach but can be taken more or less creatively and flexibly.[28]
Other uses
The word paradigm is also still used to indicate a pattern or model or an outstandingly clear or typical example or archetype. The term is frequently used in this sense in the design professions. Design Paradigms or archetypes comprise functional precedents for design solutions. The best-known references on design paradigms are Design Paradigms: A Sourcebook for Creative Visualization, by Wake, and Design Paradigms by Petroski.
This term is also used in cybernetics. Here it means (in a very wide sense) a (conceptual) photo program for reducing the chaotic mass to some form of order. Note the similarities to the concept of entropy in chemistry and physics. A paradigm there would be a sort of prohibition to proceed with any action that would increase the total entropy of the system. In order to create a paradigm, aclosed system which would accept any changes is required. Thus a paradigm can be only applied to a system that is not in its final stage.
Beyond its use in the physical and social sciences, Kuhn's paradigm concept has been analysed in relation to its applicability in identifying 'paradigms' with respect to worldviews at specific points in history. One example is Matthew Edward Harris' book The Notion of Papal Monarchy in the Thirteenth Century: The Idea of Paradigm in Church History.[29] Harris stresses the primarily sociological importance of paradigms, pointing towards Kuhn's second edition of The Structure of Scientific Revolutions. Although obedience to popes such as Innocent III and Boniface VIII was widespread, even written testimony from the time showing loyalty to the pope does not demonstrate that the writer had worldview with the Church, and therefore pope, at the centre. The difference between paradigms in the physical sciences and in historical organisations such as the Church is that the former, unlike the latter, requires technical expertise rather than repeating statements. In other words, after scientific training through what Kuhn calls 'exemplars', one could not genuinely believe that to take a trivial example, the earth is flat, whereas thinkers such as Giles of Rome in the thirteenth century wrote in favour of the pope, then could easily write similarly glowing things about the king. A writer such as Giles would have wanted a good job from the pope; he was a papal publicist. However, Harris writes that 'scientific group membership is not concerned with desire, emotions, gain, loss and any idealistic notions concerning the nature and destiny of humankind...but simply to do with aptitude, explanation, [and] cold description of the facts of the world and the universe from within a paradigm'.[30]
Notes
1. Paradigm definition from the Oxford English Dictionary Online
2. "The Structure of Scientific Revolution, Kuhn, Thomas S. The Structure of Scientific Revolutions, 3rd edition. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1996. page 10
3. Kuhn, T S (1970) The Structure of Scientific Revolutions (2nd Edition) University of Chicago Press. Section V, pages 43-51. ISBN 0-226-45804-0.
4. Kuhn, T S (1970) The Structure of Scientific Revolutions. (2nd Edition) University of Chicago Press. Pages 88 and 41, respectively.
5. Kuhn, T S (1970) The Structure of Scientific Revolutions. (2nd Edition) University of Chicago Press. Page 44.
6. a b Kuhn, T S (1970) The Structure of Scientific Revolutions. (2nd Edition) University of Chicago Press. Page 85.
7. Benedict, R (1971) Patterns of Culture. Routledge and Kegan Paul.
8. Spradley, J (1979)The Ethnographic Interview. Harcourt Brace Jovanovich.
9. The attribution of this statement to Lord Kelvin is given in a number of sources but without citation. It is reputed to be Kelvin's remark made in an address to the British Association for the Advancement of Science in 1900. See the article on Lord Kelvin for additional details and references.
10. Do you suffer from paradigm paralysis?
11. Kuhn, T S (1970) The Structure of Scientific Revolutions (2nd Edition) University of Chicago Press. Page 85.
12. Haack, S (2003) Defending Science – within reason: between scientism and cynicism. Prometheus Books.ISBN 978-1-59102-458-3.
13. Brady, J E (1990). General Chemistry: Principles and Structure. (5th Edition.) John Wiley and Sons.
14. Smith, P J (2011) The Reform of Economics. Taw Books. ISBN 978-0-9570697-0-1. Page 129.
15. Smith, P J (2011) The Reform of Economics. Taw Books. Chapter 7.
16. Slattery, Martin (2003). "Key ideas in sociology".OCLC Number: 52531237 (Cheltenham : Nelson Thornes). pp. 151, 152, 153, 155. ISBN 978-0-7487-6565-2.
17. Nickles, Thomas (December 2002). Thomas Kuhn. Cambridge University Press. pp. 1, 2, 3, 4.doi:10.2277/0521792061. ISBN 978-0-521-79206-6. "Thomas Kuhn (1922–1996), the author of The Structure of Scientific Revolutions, is probably the best-known and most influential historian and philosopher of science of the last 25 years and has become something of a cultural icon. His concepts of paradigm, paradigm change and incommensurability have changed the way we think about science."
18. Iacoboni, M. (2008), Mirroring People: The New Science of How We Connect with Others. Farrar, Straus and Giroux. Page 17.
19. [16] Lakatos, I. (1970), "Falsification and the Methodology of Scientific Research Programmes," in Lakatos, I. and Musgrave, A. (eds.) (1990), Criticism and the Growth of Knowledge. Cambridge.
20. Laudan, L. (1977), Progress and Its Problems: Towards a Theory of Scientific Growth. University of California Press, Berkeley.
21. Handa, M. L. (1986) "Peace Paradigm: Transcending Liberal and Marxian Paradigms". Paper presented in "International Symposium on Science, Technology and Development, New Delhi, India, March 20–25, 1987, Mimeographed at O.I.S.E., University of Toronto, Canada (1986)
22. παράδειγμα, Henry George Liddell, Robert Scott, A Greek-English Lexicon, on Perseus Digital Library
23. παραδείκνυμι, Henry George Liddell, Robert Scott, A Greek-English Lexicon, on Perseus Digital Library
24. παρά, Henry George Liddell, Robert Scott, A Greek-English Lexicon, on Perseus Digital Library
25. δείκνυμι, Henry George Liddell, Robert Scott, A Greek-English Lexicon, on Perseus Digital Library
26. Sampley, J. Paul (2003). Paul in the Greco-Roman World: A Handbook. Trinity Press International. pp. 228–229. ISBN 9781563382666.
27. paradigm - Definition from the Merriam-Webster Online Dictionary
28. Blackburn, Simon, 1994, 2005, 2008, rev. 2nd ed. The Oxford Dictionary of Philosophy. Oxford: Oxford University Press. ISBN 0-19-283134-8. Description & 1994 letter-preview links.
29. Harris, Matthew (2010). The notion of the papal monarchy in the thirteenth century: the idea of paradigm in church history. Lewiston, N.Y.: Edwin Mellen Press. p. 160.ISBN 978-0-7734-1441-9.
30. Harris, Matthew (2010). The notion of the papal monarchy in the thirteenth century: the idea of paradigm in church history. Lewiston, N.Y.: Edwin Mellen Press. p. 118.ISBN 978-0-7734-1441-9.
References and links·
Clarke, Thomas and Clegg, Stewart (eds). Changing Paradigms. London: HarperCollins, 2000. ISBN 0-00-638731-4
Handa, M. L. (1986) "Peace Paradigm: Transcending Liberal and Marxian Paradigms" Paper presented in "International Symposium on Science, Technology and Development, New Delhi, India, March 20–25, 1987, Mimeographed at O.I.S.E., University of Toronto, Canada (1986)
Kuhn, Thomas S. The Structure of Scientific Revolutions, 3rd Ed. Chicago and London: Univ. of Chicago Press, 1996. ISBN 0-226-45808-3 - Google Books Aug. 2011
Masterman, Margaret, "The Nature of a Paradigm," pp. 59–89 in Imre Lakatos and Alan Musgrave.Criticism and the Growth of Knowledge. Cambridge: Cambridge Univ. Press, 1970. ISBN 0-521-09623-5
Encyclopædia Britannica, Univ. of Chicago, 2003, ISBN 0-85229-961-3
Dogan, Mattei., "Paradigms in the Social Sciences," International Encyclopedia of the Social and Behavioral Sciences, Volume 16, 2001)
"JSTOR: British Journal of Sociology of Education: Vol. 13, No. 1 (1992), pp. 131-143". Retrieved 2007-06-18.
The Fourth Paradigm: Data-Intensive Scientific Discovery, Microsoft Research, 2009, ISBN 978-0-9825442-0-4 http://fourthparadigm.org
Harris, Matthew Edward. The Notion of Papal Monarchy in the Thirteenth Century: The Idea of Paradigm in Church History. Lampeter and Lewiston, NY: Edwin Mellen Press, 2010. ISBN 978-0-7734-1441-9
(Note: Above article is not written by me rather downloaded and edited from Wikipedia on February 18, 2014. Arguments and facts were verified with original sources.)
=============================
THIS IS THE END OF ARTICLE TWO
=============================
Anil Kumar
Assistant Professor
Raffles University, Rajasthan
Anil Kumar | Student of Life World
Stay Social ~ Stay Connected
Study with Anil
Lecture, Study Material, and More
Keep Visiting ~ Stay Curious
0 Comments