CHALLENGING THE PARADIGM OF ‘THE PARADIGM.’ .
David Paul Boaz makes the claim in his paper, ‘Thomas Kuhn’s Paradigm Paradigm: Is Science Rational?’ that: ‘Once more “the whole of science” is not rational and objective.’… accepting that as Kuhn claims in his ‘Structure of Scientific Revolutions,’ (1962) ‘ ‘the orthodox descending “normal science” paradigm and the ascending “revolutionary science” paradigm – are incommensurable …The cognitive “gestalt switch” from old to new paradigm is akin to a non-rational ‘religious conversion.’
Boaz concludes: ‘Thus have the Post modernists, Godel, Kuhn, Quine and Heidigger shown that Science, the exemplar of Rationality, has a non-rational core that it cannot escape.’ (1)
Regarding the above, this serf, like the philosopher Schopenhaur, 🙂 considers that the debasement of reason in philosophy and science from Hegel on has had a corrupt influence on criticism. In me serf ‘History’s Chequered History I wrote: ‘ As the servant of Frederick William’s totalitarian State, Hegel developed a process of argument called the dialectic, a debasement of reason that contemporary philosopher, Schopenhaur described as corrupting a whole generation, By means of this dialectic process Hegel was able to twist arguments for freedom of thought and the concept of liberty into their opposite. Adapting to his dialectical process the antimonies arising from pure speculation, Hegel argues that Kant is wrong to worry about contradictions. While critical discussion and science proceed on the basis that contradictions are not permitted, in the Hegelian doctrine they are to be welcomed.’
After Hegel, I consider that Postmodern attacks on rational criticism, undermine the scientific process that through criticism has seen the tentative growth of knowledge from Ptolemy to Copernicus, from Kepler and Galileo on to Newton to Einstein and the technologies that has risen from the evolution of theories about our world.
Regarding the irrationality of science see the criticisms of the above Postmodernist claims of Kuhn et al, by A. Palmer and J.W.N.Watkins in the 9th Edition of Serf Under_ground Journal . See also, the ensuing argument against Boaz and Kuhn’s contention that doing science as an irrational activity.
ON THE THEORY OF THE OBJECTIVE MIND.
At a lecture in Vienna in 1968, published in, ‘Objective Knowledge, An Evolutionary Approach,’ Chapter 4, (Oxford.1972.) Karl Popper explores the implications of Plato’s and the Stoics theories of Philosophical pluralism involving the natural world and the world of ideas. The lecture is posted in this thread as a pdf with the brief reference below referring to its content. (2)
Say, y’all know serf’s are preoccupied with issues of freedom, so here’s hopin’, yer’ll fergive this serf’s intrusion into philosophy, as she attempts to identify constraints on freedom of enquiry. Sometimes the old time tested aphorisms based on field experience jest don’t allow us serfs ter make argumentative connections. So herewith, Chapter 4, ‘ On the Theory of the Objective Mind.’ discussing Plato’s theory of Forms.
Plato’s world of Forms or Ideas was a world of higher realities though it was not a world of personal gods or a world of consciousness but an objective third world which existed in addition to the physical world and to the world of the mental states.. Popper makes this the starting point of his discussion that there exist three entologically distinct sub-worlds, ‘World 1,’ the physical world or world of physical states, ‘World 2,’ the world of mental states, of psychological states, and ‘World 3,’ the world of intelligibles or ideas in an objective sense, of which theories are the most important.
This World 3 has often been mistaken for subjective ideas or mental states belonging to the second world, as recognised by the stoics. To World 3 we can ascribe universal concepts, eg, the number 7, or mathematical propositions eg 7×11=77, or even false propositions like 7×11 = 66. We can also ascribe to it all kinds of non-mathematical propositions. ( p156)
Popper states it is important to distinguish between Worlds 2 and 3 because there is a tendency in the humanities to reject the existence of a third world. Popper argues that the third world is not a fiction. It exists and transcends its makers in its unplanned products eg, impact of electrical power transmission or economic theories on decisions such as whether to build a boat or a plane. (pp158/159)
From the time we produce our theories they produce unintended consequences and feed backs leading to new problems, problems not made by us but discovered by us, capable of being interpreted and criticized almost as world 1 objects. (pp 160/161.)
The activity of mediating World 3 objects can represented as a general schema of problem solving by a method of imaginative conjectures and criticism or refutation . P1 -> TT -> EE -> P2 ( Problem 1-> Tentative Theory-> Error Elimination, (tests) leading to new problem situation. ( p164)
In history as well as science, analysis of world 3 situations is appropriate. Identifying a third world problem situation is the paramount task, not as the historian- philosopher, R.G. Collingwood perceived it as an attempt to re enact an actor’s original experience, as an act of empathy, but seeking to apply situational analysis to the actor’s reasoning involving a problem situation (p171and p186) which involves a rational principle in the sense that we can interpret an action as an attempt to solve a problem.(p171 and p186) (See also me History’s ‘Chequered History.’ on context.)
Popper next offers a fascinating situational analysis in his study of Galileo’s Theory of Tides, a third world method of historical and not psychological investigation. Popper’s study investigates why Galileo, in spite of being aware of the well-known idea of the moon’s influence upon the tides, and in spite of being familiar with the work of Kepler, perseveres with the hypothesis of the circular motion of the planet. Kepler’s. Popper’s analysis identifies a problem situation that explains the logic of Galileo’s actions. … Read on … (p 181)
Regarding ‘understanding’ in the humanities, Popper is prepared to accept as its task, an understanding of our common humanity, but the method of conjecture and refutation remains its method and the task of science is also one of understanding, (an understanding of nature, not men,) that has been a constant hope of almost all great scientists at least since Anaximander. This hope has reached at least some temporary fulfilment, first in Newton, and then in Einstein’s theory of Gravity. ( p183.)
Popper concludes that the idea of a World 3 is of interest for a theory of understanding which aims at combining our understanding of reality with the objectivity of rational criticism. (p 190.)
Karl Popper On The Theory of The Objective Mind (Acrobat File .pdf as cited)
So what poetry applies ter the above? Guess it’s this one reposted from SU_g Journal Ninth Edition about keepin’ yer head in an emotional storm. H/t mosomoso.
One Step Backward.
Not only sand and gravels
Were once more on their travels,
But gulping muddy gallons
Great boulders off their balance
Bumped heads together dully
And started down the gully.
Whole capes caked off in slices.
I felt my standpoint shaken
In the universal crisis.
But with one step backwards taken
I saved myself from going.
A world torn loose went by me.
Then the rain stopped and the blowing,
And the sun came out to dry me