If ones paradigm makes a difference in ones success in coming to terms with the world, then it is important to use one that works. There might be ways to appraise the "rightness" of the way one takes the world.
Here is one primary way to assess a paradigm in use. Weigh categorizing the way a particular paradigm does, to get answers to the following questions:
- Does this way of categorizing save the appearances? Fit
- Does it do so without finagling? Honesty
- How broad a range of data does it cover? Scope
- How well does it integrate, internally and externally? Mesh
- Does it accommodate novel data smoothly? Adaptability
- Does it accommodate novel data willingly? Openness
- Does it generate new and useful ideas and applications? Fertility
- Does it have felicity standards that work? Effectiveness
- How often does it break down? Reliability
- Does it have internal procedures for dealing with failures? Self-correctiveness
- Does it have legs? Endurance
- Does it pay attention to Ockham's razor? Parsimony and elegance
- Does it have perspicuous rules of operation? Clarity
There are two other ways to assess a paradigm in use.
- Check to see how well a paradigm's rules work.
- Check the paradigm's output.
- Does it generate a coherent belief package for those who use it?
- Example: Intentionalism is favoured by ethical monotheists because it occasions a divine intender as the sufficient reason for beneficent non-human intentionality. But, by the same argument, it also occasions a demonic intender as the sufficient reason for malevolent non-human intentionality. This seems only marginally "monotheistic."
- If weak paradigms generate dysfunctional practice, the quality of a culture that uses a paradigm may indicate the quality of what it's using.
- Example: People who go hungry on fertile land in a temperate climate and sacrifice children to improve harvests may have more conceptual problems than bad luck.
No comments:
Post a Comment