Dear Friends,
Isn’t it true: “Paradigm” is one of the most deeply useful and most used or abused term in the intellectual circles and discussions?
I used the term often, without fully comprehending its finer details. So, I started searching for comprehensive description to fully comprehend the meaning to gain deeper insights but could not reach the goal yet.
Hence, I decided to create one and share here for debate and discussion for improving my understanding by listening to different perspectives for gaining new insights. Let me share, my preliminary draft description and insights briefly:
Question: What is a scientific or technological Paradigm?
Answer: A Paradigm is a complex perception of reality painted by a huge BoK (Body of Knowledge) comprising thousands of pieces of Knowledge such as individual observations, experiences, shared background axiomatic-assumptions, values, theories, postulates and prevailing climate of opinions or thought patterns of a very large community or group of persons subscribed to the paradigm.
A paradigm can become a deeply entrenched paradigm, only if it attracts a very large community or groups of practitioners and researchers for expanding the paradigm and they together accumulate a huge BoK by acquiring knowledge for decades or even centuries. Each piece of knowledge in the BoK for a deeply entrenched paradigm is consistent and/or congruent with all the other pieces of the knowledge in the BoK and overall perception of reality painted by the BoK.
The Books and research publications for each discipline (e.g. Botany, Zoology, Chemistry, virology, mycology, parasitology, and bacteriology to name a few) comprises a huge BoK accumulated for decades, and the BoK paints a perception of reality, where the perception of reality is the “Paradigm”.
In other words, paradigm for a discipline is our understanding of the world or perception of reality painted by the BoK or Knowledge in text books and research papers. Every mature discipline must have a paradigm, which is nothing but a perception of reality painted by the BoK acquired and accumulated for the discipline.
Almost every discipline including soft-sciences (e.g. sociology, political sciences, psychology, economics or even each religion) having BoK that paints a perception, which may be referred to as a paradigm. My understating has few gray or blurred patches, so like to here other perspectives to improve clarity.
Our understanding of term “paradigm” can never be complete without knowing the state of Knowledge without a paradigm (e.g. during pre-paradigmatic state). The seminal and influential book “The Structure of Scientific Revolutions” By Thomas Kuhn (who coined the term “paradigm”) describes a period called pre-paradigmatic (or pre-science) state for each scientific discipline, when the scientific discipline is in its infancy (i.e. at the time of its inception).
During the pre-paradigmatic period, there exists a chaotic situation. There is a good summary for chaotic state during pre-paradigmatic (or pre-science) for any discipline in this informative video starting 1 minute 16 seconds for just two and half minutes: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JQPsc55zsXA (also next video may be interesting, which explains that creating a paradigm is essential to overcome such chaos: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sOGZEZ96ynI)
During the pre-paradigmatic (or pre-science) it is very hard to acquire knowledge. So, a basic foundation would be formed over the period for a paradigm by accumulating various theories, axioms, postulates that are created using reasoning and consensus and by relying on background assumptions, observations, prevailing climate of opinions or thought patterns.
For example, the pre-paradigmatic (or pre-science) period for basic sciences might be between 4th century BC and 1st century CE, during the many ancient philosophers (e.g. Plato, Aristotle, Pythagoras and Archimedes etc.) created the foundation for first scientific paradigm. This unfortunately also comprised a flawed axiomatic assumption or fallacy: The Earth is static. Exposing the fallacy resulted in a scientific revolution.
Likewise, even modern scientific disciplines would have a pre-paradigmatic (or pre-science) period. For example, the paradigmatic (or pre-science) period for computer science and software was approximately between mid-1950s and early-1970s.
For example, two NATO software engineering conferences 1st from 7th to 11th October 1968 and 2nd conference from 27th to 31st October 1969 defined (or coined) new terms such as “software engineering”, components and assembling etc., where the conferences were attended by many influential though leaders and researchers of computer science from almost all nations, which were engaged on computer science research at that period.
Although they became integral part of our vocabulary, the terms such as “software engineering” or “assembling” were perceived to be provocative or strange in 1968. There would be a period for transition from pre-science to normal science for such terms to become integral part of our vocabulary.
Also different groups may make the transition during different periods. It is also hard to know exact duration of transition, so my guess is that it happened between 1970 and 1975, but certainly culminated into a paradigm before 1979.
A paradigm would slowly become more and more entrenched (1) as more and more pieces of knowledge are accumulated and added to the BoK (Body of Knowledge), and (2) as more and more practitioners and researchers become subscribers to the paradigm. I think, software paradigm also has fallacies injected during pre-science period. Exposing those fallacies should result in a revolution.
According to the book “The Structure of Scientific Revolutions” By Thomas Kuhn (who coined the term “paradigm”): If any new piece of knowledge or fact is proposed or discovered for a deeply entrenched or dominant paradigm, it would face fierce resistance from the practitioners of the paradigm and they try their best to suppress the new piece of knowledge (e.g. even by resorting to attacks), if the new piece of knowledge is not congruent, but contradict or inconsistent with the perceptions or reality painted by the BoK for the dominant paradigm.
Normal science solves puzzles that are posed by the prevailing paradigm but does not challenge the paradigm's basic axiomatic tenets or postulates. But in fact, "normal science" will suppress novelties which undermine its foundations (i.e. the basic axiomatic tenets or postulates). If the fundamental axiomatic postulates are fallacies and exposing the fallacies would result in a revolution.
Best Regards,
Raju Chiluvuri
My conception of 'paradigm' doesn't involve size. Size comes into the equation only if we talk dominant/mainstream paradigms. It's not a diachronic index either (from pre-paradigmatic to paradigmatic to post-paradigmatic). A field of study can have multiple contemporaneous paradigms.
The most salient feature of a 'paradigm' is the existence of a 'canon'. There's 'exemplary' work exhibiting main tenets whose interpration is more rigid and for which propenents of the paradigm more or less agree.
I think there's more to be gained in terms of understanding 'paradigms' when we study 'paradigm shifts'. When, how and why they occur? Who sets them in motion? Who stands to lose or gain from them? That sort of things.
Dear Mr. Asterios Chardalias,
Thank you. Indeed a different perspective. I will try to digest and assimilate into my perspective.
Regards,
Raju
I think this is a very narrow notion of paradigm, especially regarding the presence of Bodies of Knowledge.
In a broader sociological sense, however it arises, I have heard paradigm used to represent a context that governs ones beliefs and actions while being invisible or undistinguished. The paradigm in which one is immersed colors and constrains ones perceptions based on the tacit context.
A few consequences are that other paradigms are inaccessible from within ones own, and statements that go without question in one seem unreal, inexplicable, or wrong from within ones own. A companion issue is that terms meaningful in one context may be appropriated differently in another, blocking access to the other sense. That can be seen by the misappropriation of mathematical notions to ones about computer software (e.g., in appropriating "function" as a computational notion, a bit like confusing arithmetic with algebra, and treating both as "math").
I have also heard it said that paradigms are inescapable, but one can shift a paradigm once its elements are distinguished.
The closed-in nature of a paradigm is illustrated by a conversation I have observed around a matter of religion.
Q: So you place your faith in X being so?
A: No, X is the truth.
where X could be anything, such as "God exists" or "there is life after death" or any other propositions that tend to defy confirmation (or refutation) in any kind of scientific manner. Note: If the above Q&A strikes you as immediately ridiculous, check your paradigm :).
In this broader context, one can think of cultures as having paradigmatic components and subcultures more so. In contemporary issues in my society, there are positions taken by some that other groups find simply wrong (and vice versa) and that infects political controversy.
It appears that, in speaking of the nature of paradigms, one must check their paradigm.
Dear Mr. Hamilton,
Thank you. Very insightful. Your answer made few things clearer that were blurred before.
Best Regards,
Raju
- Badges
- Science topic
- Similar topics
- Education
- Higher Education
- Conferences