How to appraise a new alternative to the place of mainstream or a mainstream parallel?
Some practices in disciplines within academia and industry have long ago been proven logically, theoretically and philosophically inconsistent. It reached the level of practitioners and academics being labeled with suffering from cognitive dissonance without their knowledge of such suffering due to beliefs that as practitioners and academics their performance is satisfactory.
How can a paradigm shift in a discipline happen among individuals that suffer from cognitive dissonance especially when such individuals are not ready to accept such state despite that the reality proved it true.
Hi,
Usually when a researcher cannot find answers to scientific problems in his own discipline , he is turning to related field to find some answers. If this process continues over time, then a paradigm shift occurs in the mainstream of his field. You could follow the cases in which researchers in the mainstream used information from related fields, and observe if a paradigm shift in the field is in the process of occurring.
Hi and thank you Avishag Gordon very much for the answer,
It is indeed great to observe it in such a manner. Sounds very simple and straightforward. Such a multi-disciplinary approach is today all the more demanded in so many disciplines. It takes time, but how to deal and handle the inconsistencies within the disciplines when the main paradigm is refusing to recognise failure of practical relevance of solutions that they think are solutions but in fact exacerbate the problem.
This is a matter that makes me ponder, how to handle the cognitive dissonant behaviour of such main paradigm proponents. Nothing would change abruptly but when logic indicates on the need for an alternative, why cant gradual change be accepted?
Indeed something to ponder over and resolve.
According to Kuhn's own ideas about paradigm shifts, those who are trained in and believe in a particular paradigm are like to continue following it, despite challenges to their way of thinking. So, rather than "converting" those who pursue an older paradigm, Kuhn argued that most paradigm shifts would occur through new (typically younger) researchers changing their beliefs.
Hi,,
Kuhn differentiates between a paradigm shift and a revolution. In the former when new theories enter the science field the older theories and values are not abandoned, and in the latter, the new theories and values take over, and the older ones are neglected. A paradigm shift is more gradual than a revolution.
Paradigm shift will happen if someone provides evidence contrary to existing methods. It takes time and sometimes multiple evidences may be required. Let me give you an example from a scientific invention standpoint. In the 1970s and 1980s all of us used watches and clocks which had an hour hand and a minute hand and sometimes a second hand. The Swiss were pioneers in precision watch making. A Swiss scientist had invented a digital watch that showed the time using a 7-segment digital circuit display which did not have the hour hand or minute hand. He took his invention to the Swiss watchmakers who laughed and rejected outright this invention because to them a watch without hands is not a watch. The inventor took the invention to Casio (Japan) who embraced it and digital watches and clocks became popular and cheap. This was the paradigm shift and the Swiss forfeited the opportunity to make a revolution.
- Badges
- Science topic
- Similar topics
- Methodology
- Research Methodology