On 8/15/07, Donal McEvoy <donalmcevoyuk@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> In so far as this involves an allusion to T.S.Kuhn, particularly his
> 'The
> Structure of Scientific Revolutions', could someone venture to
> elucidate
> the
> difference between 'normal' and 'revolutionary' thinking (without using
> question-begging explanations like 'well, one is paradigmmatic and the
> other
> non-paradigmmatic thinking' or "well, one is 'in the box' and the other
> 'out
> of the box" thinking).
The trick here, as Kuhn himself recognized, is not to focus on thinking
itself but on the sociological context within which thinking occurs.
Paradigmatic thinking occurs when thoughts are embedded in an
established/conventional/usual way of doing things. Pre-paradigmatic
thinking occurs when there is no consensus and numerous opinions contend
with no established procedures for adjudicating between them.
Revolutionary
thinking occurs when someone challenges an established paradigm and
actually
succeeds in transforming it.
Consider, for example, the case of medicine. Prior to the establishment
of
medical schools and licensing boards, the practice of medicine was
empirical and informed only by whatever opinions a doctor happened to
pick
up during his apprenticeship or however else he learned his trade. What
we
think of as modern medicine emerged with the establishment of schools
with
the same required prerequisites and curriculum, including internships and
residencies leading to specialization defined in biomedical, a.k.a.,
scientific terms. We have seen a lot of grumbling about the deficiencies
of
what has become the conventional biomedical paradigm and the thinking and
research that go on within it, but have yet to see the kind of
breakthrough
that, for example, the 17th century brought to physics with the
introduction
of analytic geometry, the calculus, and the experimental method.
The critical thing about revolutionary thinking is not that it's merely
different from what has gone on before. That happens all the time at the
pre-paradigmatic stage. It is, instead, that the new thinking is so
compelling that it radically transforms the practice of the field.
Revolution is a social fact, not a purely intellectual one.
John
--
John McCreery
The Word Works, Ltd., Yokohama, JAPAN
Tel. +81-45-314-9324
http://www.wordworks.jp/
