“Though each may hope to convert the other to his way of seeing science and its problems, neither may hope to prove his case. The competition between paradigms is not the sort of battle that can be resolved by proof.” (Thomas Kuhn The Structure of Scientific Revolutions, p. 148).
After listening to the tone, content, and quality of assertions made from the podium of this blog during this past week I believe that without some further structure and focus the conversation will only become fatuous rant and rave.
In the spirit of inquiry I am proposing that those who are interested in the concepts of paradigms and change within science both basic and applied read the seminal work of Thomas Kuhn, The Structure of Scientific Revolutions. More of an extended essay than a comprehensive book this work provides a basic language and conceptual framework which we can accept, modify, or reject. With a common language, conceptual premises, and hypotheses perhaps we can have edifying dialogue.
During the next week, I suggest we read the preface to the 3rd edition (University of Chicago Press, 1996). Please offer comments and critique of Dr. Kuhn’s work and make suggestions as to what can become a common language in understanding paradigmatic change in science. For those unable to locate this book, I have included in the blogroll and below two websites that offer various links and summaries of his work. Subsequently, we can read a section or chapter a week, taking more time as necessary to arrive at whatever consensus is possible.
I am neither a scientific nor medical historian nor scholar. I do recognize and admire enduring scholarship. I believe Kuhn’s work is relevant and useful for the purposes of this forum.
http://www.des.emory.edu/mfp/Kuhn.html Outline and study guide prepared by professor Frank Pajares.
http://webpages.shepherd.edu/maustin/kuhn/kuhn.htm website Thomas Kuhn and the Structure of the Scientific Revolutions A paradigm Shift in the History of Science.
Tags: , alternative medicine, homeopathy, medicine, paradigm, science
December 5, 2007 at 12:09 am
Oh, boy! Homework! I’m not sure but I think that many skeptics of homeopathy may be equally skeptical that paradigms exist. Wasn’t it Socrates who said that the unexamined scientific paradigm isn’t worth conducting research in?
December 7, 2007 at 5:26 pm
I am intrigued by the invitation. I’m reading “The Structure of Scientific Revolutions” (3rd Ed.) at the moment. I was introduced to Kuhn during a philosophy of science course taught on my Physics degree programme.
In the end the homeopathy debate comes down to good reasons. I just don’t think that homeopathy has them in the Kuhnian sense:
“…Debates over theory-choice cannot be cast in a form that fully resembles logical or mathematical proof … Nothing about that relatively familiar thesis implies either that there are no good reasons for being persuaded or that those reasons are not ultimately decisive for the group. Nor does it even imply that the reasons for choice are different from those usually listed by philosophers of science: accuracy, simplicity, fruitfulness and the like …”
Kuhn, TS “The Structure of Scientific Revolutions” pp 199 – 200
Neither is Kuhn particularly popular with scientists, so common ground with some with a science background may be hard to find. Personally, I think that he is too imprecise; too open to wild interpretation. In fact Kuhn was quoted by Freeman Dyson as protesting “I am not a Kuhnian!” in response to the highly relativistic interpretation many have put on his work. Nevertheless I think he has some useful things to say.
Watch out for the postscript at the end of the book. Kuhn significantly refines and corrects some of this proposals; including his definition(s) of “paradigm”!
It may even be the case that even if Socrates talks about Paradigms they may not share the same definition as Kuhn’s. The man himself notes that a partial analytic index noted that the term could be used in 22 different ways (p.181).
Also I must confess to finding that Lakatos provides a more compelling model for the science. Having said that there are quite a few parallels between Kuhnian Paradigms and Lakatosian Research Programmes.
Finally, we have to concede that no philosopher of science can claim to have devised a general and wholly successful description of this complex enterprise. They offer us evidence, analysis, argument and opinion; not holy writ.
Anyway, I’m happy to offer some contributions to the debate.
December 11, 2007 at 10:11 pm
Hello,
I’ve been reading & commenting on a few of the ‘homeopathy blogs’ with interest. However, on one blog, freetochoosehealth, almost all my comments are being deleted, however polite. Today I have had two posts deleted that were just saying ‘Happy Christmas’.
This confused me. I think that everybody should be free to make choices about their health based on all the best information we have. Censoring comments suggests an unwillingness to engage in debate. If you hold strong beliefs, you should be prepared to defend them with argument and evidence, or re-evaluate them if you can’t do so. Censorship doesn’t help anyone.
I’ve put up a blog of my own, just containing the titles & a link to each of FTCH’s posts. I won’t delete comments on there (if I have no choice, I will always explain why), and anyone from any side of the debate is welcome to write whatever they want, without censorship. I would rather hope that you can all manage polite & reasoned discussions, but I won’t delete what’s not.
Please join me, and submit comments on both freetochoosehealth and http://freefromcensorship.wordpress.com/
Many thanks,
‘Duck’.
December 14, 2007 at 10:37 pm
The first thing that stands out to me in the preface, setting aside the autobiographical information, is that the definition set out in brief for a ‘paradigm’ is closest to the one that Kuhn later makes clear (in his postscript) is the more accurate and not the one that has passed into common usage.
This is the paradigm as exemplar (or close to it) rather than the overall structure of a field that most now call a paradigm. Kuhn came to call the latter a disciplinary matrix[p.182].
I wonder, does homeopathy have any “…concrete puzzle solutions which employed as models or examples can replace explicit rules as a basis for the remaining puzzles of normal science…”?[p.187]
December 15, 2007 at 12:49 pm
Just a quick thought, perhaps the blog should be called newdisciplinarymatrixmedicine?