83,049
edits
Paradigm: Difference between revisions
no edit summary
Amwelladmin (talk | contribs) No edit summary |
Amwelladmin (talk | contribs) No edit summary |
||
| (6 intermediate revisions by the same user not shown) | |||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
{{a|philosophy|}}{{d|Paradigm|/ˈpærədaɪm/|n|}}<br>1. (''[[Epistemology|Epistemology]]; nowadays rare'') The idea, first finding voice in {{author|Thomas Kuhn}}’s spectacular {{br|The Structure of Scientific Revolutions}} that any academic discipline comprises not just a body of canonical knowledge, but a language, world-view, hierarchy, intellectual tradition and social organisation which, prevents you from credibly sounding off about it until you have fully assimilated it and, basically, been indoctrinated by it. Not that it has ever stopped the JC trying. | {{a|philosophy|{{subtable|[[File:Paradigm.jpg|450px|frameless|center]]<center>Well, ''you'' try finding a decent image of a paradigm. Besides, this is taken in the wonderful Ostallgäu. That is Hopfensee in the distance. So there.</center>}} | ||
}}{{d|Paradigm|/ˈpærədaɪm/|n|}}<br>1. (''[[Epistemology|Epistemology]]; nowadays rare'') The idea, first finding voice in {{author|Thomas Kuhn}}’s spectacular {{br|The Structure of Scientific Revolutions}} that any academic discipline comprises not just a body of canonical knowledge, but a language, world-view, hierarchy, intellectual tradition and social organisation which, prevents you from credibly sounding off about it until you have fully assimilated it and, basically, been indoctrinated by it. Not that it has ever stopped the JC trying. | |||
2. (''Management consultancy, distressingly common''): A [[fashionable idea]] someone else had recently that you are now cottoning on to that promises to, but won’t, profoundly change the commercial world. | 2. (''Management consultancy, distressingly common''): A [[fashionable idea]] someone else had recently that you are now cottoning on to that promises to, but won’t, profoundly change the commercial world. | ||
3. '''A [[hierarchy]] or [[power structure]]''': the political organisation around an idea, that confers authority on those who have qualified themselves to husband that idea. | |||
==Thomas Kuhn’s paradigms== | ==Thomas Kuhn’s paradigms== | ||
| Line 10: | Line 13: | ||
A paradigm thus has “exclusive jurisdiction” over its own subject matter. One can only pronounce on a scientific problem once one has been fully inducted into it: biologists will not take seriously the biological assertions of derivatives lawyers, or religious clerics, for example. Clerics who take biology exams and refuse to renounce their religious beliefs will fail, and thereby will never be able to authoritatively comment on biological matters. But the same thing would happen if {{author|Richard Dawkins}} entered the seminary. So plenty of scope — need, even — for [[cognitive dissonance]]. | A paradigm thus has “exclusive jurisdiction” over its own subject matter. One can only pronounce on a scientific problem once one has been fully inducted into it: biologists will not take seriously the biological assertions of derivatives lawyers, or religious clerics, for example. Clerics who take biology exams and refuse to renounce their religious beliefs will fail, and thereby will never be able to authoritatively comment on biological matters. But the same thing would happen if {{author|Richard Dawkins}} entered the seminary. So plenty of scope — need, even — for [[cognitive dissonance]]. | ||
Now | ===This is not malicious=== | ||
Now note here: none of this is malicious, requires a conspiracy or involves the wanton suppression of dissident voices. The development of a paradigm is a thoroughly natural — inevitable — mode of social development. Those who defend the sacred texts of the organisation by interposing barries are doing no more than the essential work of ensuring the research programme, such as it is, has continuity and longevity. If ''any'' random can kick away ''any'' pillar of the edifice, no matter how structurally important, your paradigm cannot grow and will not survive. These are basic survival mechanisms. The more sophisticated the paradigm becomes, the more precious do those foundational propositions become. String theory, for example, is a young discipline, has not yet fully covered and has very few common axioms, there is still much debate about all of them, and all are more or less expendable. Newton’s basic laws of mechanics, on the other hand, are so deeply embedded that they inform much contiguous science to this day ''even though they were falsified a century ago''. The effort of re-writing the entire scientific canon to accommodate mathematics which is far harder than newtons, and which for the most part makes almost no difference, is just not worth the effort. | |||
===The universality of paradigms=== | ===The universality of paradigms=== | ||
Now, as [[buzzword]]-brandishing [[MBA]]s amply illustrate, the intellectual concept of a paradigm is by no means confined to scientific discovery. Indeed, it has something of the “[[universal acid]]” of {{br|Darwin’s Dangerous Idea}} about it — once you see it, you can’t unsee it, and you start seeing it ''everywhere''. Religious orders function in exactly the same way. So do political ones. So do lawyers. So do industry associations. So do other academic disciplines. So do sports clubs. So | Now, as [[buzzword]]-brandishing [[MBA]]s amply illustrate, the intellectual concept of a paradigm is by no means confined to scientific discovery. Indeed, it has something of the “[[universal acid]]” of {{br|Darwin’s Dangerous Idea}} about it — once you see it, you can’t unsee it, and you start seeing it ''everywhere''. Religious orders function in exactly the same way. So do political ones. So do lawyers. So do industry associations. So do other academic disciplines. So do sports clubs. So do dissident protest movements. ''So does any social organisation with a common goal''. It has to. This is the definition of a social organisation. Paradigms resemble {{author|Daniel Dennett}}’s “universal acid” ''because that is exactly what they are'': [[paradigm]]s arise from an evolutionary process. The community that constitutes a paradigm ''evolves'' to be the way it is. It gradually [[iterate]]s over time. This ''is'' the [[universal acid]]. | ||
===Paradigms are systems=== | |||
Being social organisations with complex structure and rules with new members coming into the community and old ones leaving it, we should regard a paradigm as a complex distributed [[system]]. The stocks, flows and feedback loops are designed so that it can continue to develop, but so that its basic fundamentals are protected. Feedback loops and flows that don’t deliver that will lead to the paradigm crumbling. | |||
===It is in a paradigm’s nature to be homogeneous=== | |||
=== It is hard to see out of the paradigm once you’re inside it === | |||
Once you are infused with the learning of the paradigm, it is hard to see out of it: all questions and their answers are sought, delivered and construed within the social and logical rules the paradigm implements. So even well-intended attempts to break out fail. For example, the following question in a staff survey asks: | |||
{{Quote|Management drives innovation in the firm? | |||
[always][often][sometimes][seldom][never]}} | |||
This invites employees to comment the firm’s innovation, to gauge its success. But what of a firm which persistently witters on about implementing [[chatbot]]<nowiki/>s, [[Legal services delivery|alternative legal service delivery]] and whatever other new-age guff that catches the chief executive’s eye? It may waste billions of dollars in fruitless pursuit of vague strategies, but the employee who wishes to answer that can either select “seldom” — which isn’t true, and will only encourage the chief executive to run more quixotic attempts to solve intractible problems with coding acquired from the proverbial [[School-leaver in Bucharest|school leavers in Bucharest]] — or “always”, which will give the management team the validation that they are looking for. This is truly “[[seeing like a state]]”. | |||
{{sa}} | {{sa}} | ||
*{{br|The Structure of Scientific Revolutions}} | *{{br|The Structure of Scientific Revolutions}} | ||
{{Bi}} | |||