Attempts to bring the Kuhn readings down a notch

So...after thoroughly enjoying the wonderfully crystal clear way Kuhn writes his magnificent essay tracing the history of scientific revolutions (....not!! that was sort of a cheesy Borat reference:)), I thought I'd like to include some things I read towards the end of Chapter 10 on Scientific Revolutions and Worldviews that I thought brought the overall reading a bit down-to-earth (in a level that suits my limited understanding:)).

His first comment that really hit home was how he stated on P.128 that scientists have a "...paradigm-embodied experience of the race, the culture, and profession..." which in of themselves are paradigms through which he views his researches and their consequent results. I liked how this one brought a more human aspect to the omnipotent "male-gendered, sterile, objective scientist who's main purpose in life to solve puzzles and gets puzzled in return by scientific revolutions" definition of scientist that he seemed to be operating under before this particular chapter.

In terms of the objects of nature which are presumed to be studied by the scientist, there's another sentence on P.135 that I feel reflects how often, as scientists, we tend to try to "...make nature fit a paradigm..." Of course there are merits to our attempts in organizing nature into neat little categories through which our current limited brain capacities can rationalize and make sense of the world. However, I think we should be reminded that nature is a lot messier and mysterious than we tend to assume it to be...especially when we are merely analyzing a piece of it inside a sterile laboratory environment.

Enjoy the rest of your weekend guys!

Speaking the language, but lacking the thought

I came across this quote today (see it at the bottom of the post) that made me wonder about paradigmatic shifts on the individual level - the kind that requires us to accept the new paradigm if we don't want to end up at the philosophy department (as per Kuhn's warning). I admit it's kind of a long shot, and an even longer question-filled post, but if you manage to bare with me, I'd really appreciate hearing your thoughts...

In a paradigm’s popular success, how often does the change of vocabulary mask the actual change of thought? Do you think that scholars (including graduate students) sometimes espouse the idea of identifying themselves with a certain paradigm; then, master the language that goes along with the chosen image, and use that language freely without really understanding the meaning behind the words? Really, the closest metaphor I could think of here is the learning and speaking of an actual foreign language – a continuum from 1) memorization and reproduction of verbiage (does not really require understanding) to 2) learning a language by cultural immersion and developing an understanding of the social significance and nuances of the language. Or… I am also reminded of Leo DiCaprio in “Catch me in you can” – putting on the pilot uniform did not mean he can drive the plane, though it was perfectly sufficient for him to fake his way into being treated as a pilot.

So, how ready are we to accept, master, and use the “esoteric vocabulary” (Kuhn, p. 64) of the paradigm-de-jour without grasping the meaning of that vocabulary or, for that matter, the claims of the paradigm? Has it ever happened to you to listen to someone who uses all the appropriate terminology for the topic, and still think to yourself “This person really has no idea what she/he is talking about”? But just as use of appropriate language can mask our lack of understanding, not using the appropriate language can mask our perfect understanding of the issue…

Before I become too incoherent, here is Kristeva’s quote that triggered this rambling… perhaps committing the “sin” she warns against:

Please, no! Dare to invent words, but not without the ideas that you lack; cut the long sentences with foreign syntax for which you don’t have the thought; change the rhythm; don’t drone through the old elementary stuff, but also don’t ape the tricks of those who, unlike you, come from a boudoir and a baroque of which you have no idea. (…)

In principle, I am not even at war with neologisms, if they are the result of an attempt to think anew, if communities of men and women have ripened them in a concern for singularity in the memory of their language and in the discussions that forge their concepts. I do not see these communities, I do not see these singularities, I do not see this memory of language, I do not see these discussions. This is my suffering. Perhaps it is only a matter of blindness, since distance deprives me of information. This will be the lesser evil, and I ask your pardon. But if my suffering is justified, these lapses in taste would be only the final sign of the abject surrender of a people (and so many other) to the new world order that
wants to see only a single head – no, a single computer.

(J. Kristeva, from "Bulgaria, my Suffering")

"Creationist" Resigns from Royal Society

I was trolling Slashdot and found this interesting article about a fellow from the Royal Society (the Director of Education to be specific) resigning. More interesting than that is news that the Anglican Church (C of E) is reading to apologize to Darwin - "The Church of England will concede in a statement that it was over-defensive and over-emotional in dismissing Darwin's ideas. It will call 'anti-evolutionary fervor' an 'indictment' on the Church."

Interesting "evolution" of a theory and the issues that surround it (even 150 years later!)

Link

BYOP

Hi all,

I will remain hopeful that this class blog generates more than the one or two posts I usually get per semester. In keeping with tradition, I am the geek who posts on a Saturday night. . .

So, here's the message:

in keeping with my desire to decrease the paper and plastic products in our landfills, I would appreciate it if each of you could bring your own plate (and utensils if possible) to class. BYOP!

Hari is bringing some food--and i will chip in as well. We will discuss Kuhn and revisit the earlier readings to discuss paradigms in comm.

happy weekend

Leda

Just a start

Hi all,

I realize that I have not included everyone in this invite, but I am working with the email addresses I have here at the moment. I will try to include others asap. I am happy to get us started with a question:

How/does a theory differ from a paradigm?

What are the paradigms in Communication?

FYI, I will post the presentation schedule as soon as possible. In the meantime, Lindsay is scheduled to present next class.

Enjoy!

Leda