Normal questions surrounding the notion of paradigms have to do with what is actually a paradigm, how do they work, and where did the notion of paradigms come from. We might want to compare the paradigms within which ethical monotheism and natural science operate, noting that the primary difference between them is their respective inclusion and exclusion of internationality as a category of misunderstanding.
Just after mid-century, echoing Wittgenstein and Kant, Thomas Kuhn introduced the notions of paradigms and paradigm shifts into the discussion of how science changes. The different use of "time" in the discourse of Newton and Einstein illustrates a potential occasion for a kind of disagreement.
In the circumstance of "time," the disputants have no common body, or canons, of evidence to which they can appeal to settle their conflict. The shifts are not evidence-driven, they are driven by the dynamics of culture and by the utility - at a given time and place - of seeing things this way rather than that.
Though rival paradigms may differ in many ways, one likely way is in the selection of the basic categories that are used in it in describing, explaining, and theorizing about events. Setting standards for systems themselves is a very tricky business.
Science and theism constitute importantly different paradigms for handling phenomena. If we include all the other categories from each group in dealing with phenomena, these can interfere with the others and since the "larger" set generates its own standards and grounds for truth and falsehood, a great deal rides on which "take" one takes.
No comments:
Post a Comment