
:''For alternative meanings see Paradigm (disambiguation).'' Since the late 1800s, the word ''paradigm'' has referred to a thought pattern in any science discipline or other epistemology context. Initially the word was specific to grammar: the 1900 ''Merriam-Webster'' dictionary defines its technical use only in the context of grammar or, in rhetoric, as a term for an illustrative parable or fable. For linguistic purposes, Ferdinand de Saussure used ''paradigm'' to refer to a class of elements with similarities. The best known use of the word in the context of a scientific discipline was by philosopher Thomas Kuhn who used it to describe a set of practices in science. It was and is widely abused. Kuhn himself came to prefer the terms exemplar and normal science, which have more exact philosophical meaning. However, in his book ''The Structure of Scientific Revolutions'' Kuhn defines a scientific paradigm as: *''what'' is to be observed and scrutinized, *the kind of ''questions'' that are supposed to be asked and probed for answers in relation to this subject, *''how'' these questions are to be put, *''how'' the results of scientific investigations should be interpreted. The formally-defined term groupthink, and the term mindset, have very similar meanings that apply to smaller and larger scale examples of disciplined thought. Michel Foucault used the terms episteme and discourse, mathesis and taxinomia, for aspects of a "paradigm" in Kuhn's original sense. Read more about this in the paradigm shift, sociology of knowledge and philosophy of science articles, where these words are placed in context. ==Other uses== Probably the most common use of the word ''paradigm'' is in the sense of Weltanschauung. For example, in social science, the term is used to describe the set of experiences, beliefs and values that affect the way an individual perceives reality and responds to that perception. Social scientists have adopted the Kuhnian phrase "paradigm shift" to denote a particular social phenomenon rather than what was originally meant by Kuhn's study on the practices and development of science. Even occultists, notably chaos magic, use the term - to describe a shift in personal belief systems concerning magic (magic theory). The word ''paradigm'' is also used to indicate a pattern or model (Source:dictionary.com) or an outstandingly clear or typical example or archetype (Source:m-w.com). The term is frequently used in this sense in the design professions. Design Paradigms or archetypes, comprise functional precedents for design solutions. The best known references on design paradigms are ''Design Paradigms: A Sourcebook for Creative Visualization'', by Wake, and ''Design Paradigms'' by Petroski. This term is also used in cybernetics. Here it means (in a very wide sense) a (conceptual) protoprogramme for reducing the chaotic mass to some form of order. Note the similarities to the concept of entropy in chemistry and physics. A paradigm there would be a sort of prohibition to proceed with any action that would increase the total entropy of the system. In order to create a paradigm, a closed system which would accept any changes is required. Thus a paradigm can be only applied to a system that is not in its final stage. Some language purists feel that among "business philosophers" and advocates of any type of change whatsoever, the term ''paradigm'' is widely abused and in that context bears no meaning whatsoever. ==Etymology== The word ''paradigm'' comes from the Greek language word παράδειγμα (''paradeigma'') which means "pattern" or "example", from the word παραδεικνύναι (''paradeiknunai'') meaning "demonstrate". ==Quote== * ''Paradigm'' "is a word too often used by those who would like to have a new idea but cannot think of one."
— Mervyn King, then Deputy Governor, Bank of England ==See also== * Macrocosm and microcosm Philosophy of science Buzzwords
The last paragraph of the current article criticizes in POV fashion the use and/or abuse of this term. The criticism is silly in the respect that words, obviously, do not have immutable meanings: words are tools to express whatever an individual or community want them to communicate. On the other hand, using a word in a sense that is unknown to an intended audience, indeterminate, meaningless or misrepresentative is not helpful. If wiki is to have any diatribe on use/abuse of a word, then the first word on the list should be metaphysics. IMO, that word has been the greatest source of error, misunderstanding and nonsense in the history of the world. Besides all that, there is at least a third use of the word that is common (perhaps the most common) and meaningful which is used in the sense of Weltanschauung. My article edit that follows reflects what I've stated here. --User:BoNoMoJo 16:48, 22 Oct 2003 (UTC) Isn't there also a second use in linguistics, a "paradigm sentence", meaning an example to be used by analogy in correctly forming sentences? -- User:Jmabel 22:59, 30 Jan 2004 (UTC) Paradigm? To me, that's 20 cents. --User:Juuitchan =="The Human Paradigm"== (Lengthy and not apparently relevant Christian tract that was anonymously pasted here moved to Talk:Paradigm/Tract. -- User:Jmabel 17:32, Oct 8, 2004 (UTC) ==deigma== What's a deigma? User:Lysdexia 18:48, 25 Oct 2004 (UTC) : I assume you mean in Greek? I don't think all on its own "deigma" means anything, but I could be mistaken. You might ask one of the people listed at Wikipedia:Translators_available#Greek-to-English. -- User:Jmabel | User talk:Jmabel 20:33, Oct 25, 2004 (UTC) == Gebser's new consciousness == I think it would be relevant to insert a paragraph or so about Jean Gebser's theories on change in consciousness. User:Forteanajones — User:Forteanajones | User talk:Forteanajones 08:16, May 10, 2005 (UTC) * Go for it. -- User:Jmabel | User talk:Jmabel 17:33, May 10, 2005 (UTC) == Cybernetics == Is there any citation for the claimed use of this term in cybernetics? -- User:Jmabel | User talk:Jmabel 05:12, Jun 8, 2005 (UTC) == Paradigm as "Weltanschauung" == I would like to suggest another perspective to the concept of what a paradigm is: The ''Gestalt'' that forms my ''"Weltanschauung"'' In my recent dissertation I also discussed the use of paradigm in the understanding of Kuhn and others, but found it to be unclear and similar to other concepts like a model. Kuhn defines a paradigm as: “an entire constellation of beliefs, values and techniques, and so on, shared by the members of a given community” [Kuhn, T S; The Structure of Scientific Revolutions, 2nd Ed., Univ. of Chicago Press, Chicago & London, 1970, p.175]. This definition by Kuhn appears in the 1969 postscript to his original book, because originally the use of the term paradigm was not clearly defined). Besides this definition Kuhn mentioned another sense of use he had: Paradigm also “denotes one sort of element in that constellation, the concrete puzzle-solutions which, employed as models or examples, can replace explicit rules as a basis for the solution of the remaining puzzles of normal science” [Ibid]. The term remains imprecise due to the different uses it is given. I would suggest a definition describing paradigms from a structural perspective as levels; the macro, messo and micro levels of a paradigm. It is an attempt to be more fundamentally concerned with its structure than the chronological- historical categorisation or the etymological use by most disciplines. The levels of paradigms are always present and not limited to categories. They assists in an understanding of the functioning of a paradigm. In the ''macro'' level, a cognisance of the basic assumption to the question: ‘what can be understood’ is required. Can it in reality be assumed that the essences of ideal things could be known at all as in Plato's and Aristotle's use of the theory of ideas? Is it not possible that the things themselves are allowed to reveal themselves as they are as the in Heidegger's fundamental ontology. The question is: "to which perception does a comprehensive awareness come to, when the preconceptions in the first philosophical assumption is known and accepted?" In the ''messo'' level, the question is how the macro level influences and forms the resulting theory of knowledge. “Is only deductive-delimited knowledge of human perception available to man, or is man open to an inductive-comprehensive understanding of the world?” In the ''micro'' level, the consequence of these two questions of what is in and how the world is understood, is used in a practical way of doing. Is the praxis built on multiple ‘laws of conduct’ (ethic), or is it a fundamental and constant encounter with the open world as a different way of perception (which I like to call affective awareness). Previous and current understanding of perception is limited to essentialistic categories of limitation. Affective Awareness is by nature open and unlimited. So a Paradigm is a view of reality that is a 'Gestalt' resulting from: (1) my ''metaphysical'' assumption of what could be known (refer to the pre-Socratics Parmenides and Heraclitus). It forms the basis for: (2) my conception of ''epistemological'' knowledge acquisition (refer to the Platonic - Aristotelean to Popperian line vs. the 'Unscharf relation' of Heisenberg's quantum theories to Heidegger's 'Fundamental Ontology' line). This in turn is the basis for the: (3) ''praxis'' in an ethic for living. It is obvious that the three branches of philosophy describe the structure of a paradigm. None of the branches of Metaphysics, Epistemology and Ethics can be left out for understanding paradigms. Together they describe a 'Gestalt', akin to a spiral (not a mere circular) movement forming a Hermeneutical understanding. Hermeneutics is not merely an interpretation of something; it is a developmental cycle that involves: (a) "Wahrnemung" as an 'affective awareness', which is more than mere sense perception. The method to affective awareness is through 'ontological understanding'. It forms the principles behind a paradigm, conceived as either the Heraclitean 'flux' or the Parmenidean 'one'. This principle is perceived as the relation of the limited to the unlimited. Ethical principles like the golden ethical rule of “Do unto others as you would like them to do unto you” are formed here. (b) \"Verstehen\" as the analysis of 'being' as self understanding. Here the building of or coming to a theory of knowledge is achieved, determined by the assumptions in my metaphysical 'belief' of the nature of reality in (a). These assumptions necessarily tend to a predominantly inductive or mainly deductive theory of knowledge acquisition reflected in an epistemology. Ethical norms like the sanctity of human life and freedom are formulated at this level. (c) \"Ethos\" is the attempt to form the world we live in by growing an 'attitude' or participation in a mutually structured reality. All those who choose to participate in this reality, do it by 'taking responsibility for personal actions' in a social environment. More concrete ethical code like monogamy and what we consider to be 'true and correct behaviour' is systematised as 'dogma' at this level. (d) "Praxis" is ''doing'' the 'right' thing. It is the behaviour resulting from systematising (a), (b) and (c) as a Gestalt, where the whole is more than the sum of the parts. This behavioural level is again the basis for "Wahrnemung", repeating the cycle on an new level. Most important is to understand that this cycle does not now start from the previous position of departure; there is a 'new awareness' of the praxis due to the previous stages in the cycle, elevating the next cycle of "Wahrnemung" from the previous with a new understanding. This is the basis for the correct understanding of development. It is far more than a mere 'mechanistic' process. Another important point is that there is no start or end point in the cycle, every stage is on an elevated level to its previous position. A circle has a start and an end, which has actually no development; it is only a reaffirmation of what was before in a stagnant fundamentalism. Thus, a ''Paradigm'' can only be seen in the context of a ''Hermeneutical cycle'' in the ''Structure of the Paradigms''. It supersedes mere interpretation or just bringing understanding. It implies that Paradigms are developmental by nature, moving in a hermeneutical cycle instead of a process of recurring mechanistic circles. Describing a paradigm as an era, epic, model, weltanschauung, or any other term is hardly more than merely renaming the concept of a paradigm to some other known concept. I hope it opens another perspective. Comments are welcome! Lando L Lehmann ''Primary source:'' '"Paradigm Development in Systematic Theology"'', Dissertation at the University of South Africa (UNISA) by Lando L Lehmann, Nov 2004. :Edit: Contact me at LandSr>atWikipedia:Original research usually disparaged in Wikipedia, although I think it probably should be within the pale. Do you think you could reword what you wrote here in a style more appropriate to the general reader? If so, it's probably worth incorporating into the article. -- User:Jmabel | User talk:Jmabel 23:45, Jun 20, 2005 (UTC)
:I tried to clarify the text. Please suggest where there are still some unclear parts. The primary source is available as a PDF, pending written consent from the University to distribute it. Untill then, requests can be made to [http://www.proquest.com ProQuest Dissertations & Theses (PQDT)] -- LandoSr (LandSr>at
See other meanings of words starting from letter:
Words begining with Paradigm:
Paradigm
Paradigm
Paradigm/Tract
Paradigmatic_analysis
Paradigmatic_segmentation_analysis
Paradigms
Paradigm_(disambiguation)
Paradigm_(experimental)
Paradigm_Associates
Paradigm_Atom
Paradigm_Atom
Paradigm_bias
Paradigm_City
Paradigm_City
Paradigm_Electronics
Paradigm_Electronics
Paradigm_project
Paradigm_Secure_Communications_Ltd
Paradigm_shift
Paradigm_shift
Paradigm
:''For alternative meanings see Paradigm (disambiguation).'' Since the late 1800s, the word ''paradigm'' has referred to a thought pattern in any science discipline or other epistemology context. Initially the word was specific to grammar: the 1900 ''Merriam-Webster'' dictionary defines its technical use only in the context of grammar or, in rhetoric, as a term for an illustrative parable or fable. For linguistic purposes, Ferdinand de Saussure used ''paradigm'' to refer to a class of elements with similarities. The best known use of the word in the context of a scientific discipline was by philosopher Thomas Kuhn who used it to describe a set of practices in science. It was and is widely abused. Kuhn himself came to prefer the terms exemplar and normal science, which have more exact philosophical meaning. However, in his book ''The Structure of Scientific Revolutions'' Kuhn defines a scientific paradigm as: *''what'' is to be observed and scrutinized, *the kind of ''questions'' that are supposed to be asked and probed for answers in relation to this subject, *''how'' these questions are to be put, *''how'' the results of scientific investigations should be interpreted. The formally-defined term groupthink, and the term mindset, have very similar meanings that apply to smaller and larger scale examples of disciplined thought. Michel Foucault used the terms episteme and discourse, mathesis and taxinomia, for aspects of a "paradigm" in Kuhn's original sense. Read more about this in the paradigm shift, sociology of knowledge and philosophy of science articles, where these words are placed in context. ==Other uses== Probably the most common use of the word ''paradigm'' is in the sense of Weltanschauung. For example, in social science, the term is used to describe the set of experiences, beliefs and values that affect the way an individual perceives reality and responds to that perception. Social scientists have adopted the Kuhnian phrase "paradigm shift" to denote a particular social phenomenon rather than what was originally meant by Kuhn's study on the practices and development of science. Even occultists, notably chaos magic, use the term - to describe a shift in personal belief systems concerning magic (magic theory). The word ''paradigm'' is also used to indicate a pattern or model (Source:dictionary.com) or an outstandingly clear or typical example or archetype (Source:m-w.com). The term is frequently used in this sense in the design professions. Design Paradigms or archetypes, comprise functional precedents for design solutions. The best known references on design paradigms are ''Design Paradigms: A Sourcebook for Creative Visualization'', by Wake, and ''Design Paradigms'' by Petroski. This term is also used in cybernetics. Here it means (in a very wide sense) a (conceptual) protoprogramme for reducing the chaotic mass to some form of order. Note the similarities to the concept of entropy in chemistry and physics. A paradigm there would be a sort of prohibition to proceed with any action that would increase the total entropy of the system. In order to create a paradigm, a closed system which would accept any changes is required. Thus a paradigm can be only applied to a system that is not in its final stage. Some language purists feel that among "business philosophers" and advocates of any type of change whatsoever, the term ''paradigm'' is widely abused and in that context bears no meaning whatsoever. ==Etymology== The word ''paradigm'' comes from the Greek language word παράδειγμα (''paradeigma'') which means "pattern" or "example", from the word παραδεικνύναι (''paradeiknunai'') meaning "demonstrate". ==Quote== * ''Paradigm'' "is a word too often used by those who would like to have a new idea but cannot think of one."
— Mervyn King, then Deputy Governor, Bank of England ==See also== * Macrocosm and microcosm Philosophy of science Buzzwords
Paradigm
The last paragraph of the current article criticizes in POV fashion the use and/or abuse of this term. The criticism is silly in the respect that words, obviously, do not have immutable meanings: words are tools to express whatever an individual or community want them to communicate. On the other hand, using a word in a sense that is unknown to an intended audience, indeterminate, meaningless or misrepresentative is not helpful. If wiki is to have any diatribe on use/abuse of a word, then the first word on the list should be metaphysics. IMO, that word has been the greatest source of error, misunderstanding and nonsense in the history of the world. Besides all that, there is at least a third use of the word that is common (perhaps the most common) and meaningful which is used in the sense of Weltanschauung. My article edit that follows reflects what I've stated here. --User:BoNoMoJo 16:48, 22 Oct 2003 (UTC) Isn't there also a second use in linguistics, a "paradigm sentence", meaning an example to be used by analogy in correctly forming sentences? -- User:Jmabel 22:59, 30 Jan 2004 (UTC) Paradigm? To me, that's 20 cents. --User:Juuitchan =="The Human Paradigm"== (Lengthy and not apparently relevant Christian tract that was anonymously pasted here moved to Talk:Paradigm/Tract. -- User:Jmabel 17:32, Oct 8, 2004 (UTC) ==deigma== What's a deigma? User:Lysdexia 18:48, 25 Oct 2004 (UTC) : I assume you mean in Greek? I don't think all on its own "deigma" means anything, but I could be mistaken. You might ask one of the people listed at Wikipedia:Translators_available#Greek-to-English. -- User:Jmabel | User talk:Jmabel 20:33, Oct 25, 2004 (UTC) == Gebser's new consciousness == I think it would be relevant to insert a paragraph or so about Jean Gebser's theories on change in consciousness. User:Forteanajones — User:Forteanajones | User talk:Forteanajones 08:16, May 10, 2005 (UTC) * Go for it. -- User:Jmabel | User talk:Jmabel 17:33, May 10, 2005 (UTC) == Cybernetics == Is there any citation for the claimed use of this term in cybernetics? -- User:Jmabel | User talk:Jmabel 05:12, Jun 8, 2005 (UTC) == Paradigm as "Weltanschauung" == I would like to suggest another perspective to the concept of what a paradigm is: The ''Gestalt'' that forms my ''"Weltanschauung"'' In my recent dissertation I also discussed the use of paradigm in the understanding of Kuhn and others, but found it to be unclear and similar to other concepts like a model. Kuhn defines a paradigm as: “an entire constellation of beliefs, values and techniques, and so on, shared by the members of a given community” [Kuhn, T S; The Structure of Scientific Revolutions, 2nd Ed., Univ. of Chicago Press, Chicago & London, 1970, p.175]. This definition by Kuhn appears in the 1969 postscript to his original book, because originally the use of the term paradigm was not clearly defined). Besides this definition Kuhn mentioned another sense of use he had: Paradigm also “denotes one sort of element in that constellation, the concrete puzzle-solutions which, employed as models or examples, can replace explicit rules as a basis for the solution of the remaining puzzles of normal science” [Ibid]. The term remains imprecise due to the different uses it is given. I would suggest a definition describing paradigms from a structural perspective as levels; the macro, messo and micro levels of a paradigm. It is an attempt to be more fundamentally concerned with its structure than the chronological- historical categorisation or the etymological use by most disciplines. The levels of paradigms are always present and not limited to categories. They assists in an understanding of the functioning of a paradigm. In the ''macro'' level, a cognisance of the basic assumption to the question: ‘what can be understood’ is required. Can it in reality be assumed that the essences of ideal things could be known at all as in Plato's and Aristotle's use of the theory of ideas? Is it not possible that the things themselves are allowed to reveal themselves as they are as the in Heidegger's fundamental ontology. The question is: "to which perception does a comprehensive awareness come to, when the preconceptions in the first philosophical assumption is known and accepted?" In the ''messo'' level, the question is how the macro level influences and forms the resulting theory of knowledge. “Is only deductive-delimited knowledge of human perception available to man, or is man open to an inductive-comprehensive understanding of the world?” In the ''micro'' level, the consequence of these two questions of what is in and how the world is understood, is used in a practical way of doing. Is the praxis built on multiple ‘laws of conduct’ (ethic), or is it a fundamental and constant encounter with the open world as a different way of perception (which I like to call affective awareness). Previous and current understanding of perception is limited to essentialistic categories of limitation. Affective Awareness is by nature open and unlimited. So a Paradigm is a view of reality that is a 'Gestalt' resulting from: (1) my ''metaphysical'' assumption of what could be known (refer to the pre-Socratics Parmenides and Heraclitus). It forms the basis for: (2) my conception of ''epistemological'' knowledge acquisition (refer to the Platonic - Aristotelean to Popperian line vs. the 'Unscharf relation' of Heisenberg's quantum theories to Heidegger's 'Fundamental Ontology' line). This in turn is the basis for the: (3) ''praxis'' in an ethic for living. It is obvious that the three branches of philosophy describe the structure of a paradigm. None of the branches of Metaphysics, Epistemology and Ethics can be left out for understanding paradigms. Together they describe a 'Gestalt', akin to a spiral (not a mere circular) movement forming a Hermeneutical understanding. Hermeneutics is not merely an interpretation of something; it is a developmental cycle that involves: (a) "Wahrnemung" as an 'affective awareness', which is more than mere sense perception. The method to affective awareness is through 'ontological understanding'. It forms the principles behind a paradigm, conceived as either the Heraclitean 'flux' or the Parmenidean 'one'. This principle is perceived as the relation of the limited to the unlimited. Ethical principles like the golden ethical rule of “Do unto others as you would like them to do unto you” are formed here. (b) \"Verstehen\" as the analysis of 'being' as self understanding. Here the building of or coming to a theory of knowledge is achieved, determined by the assumptions in my metaphysical 'belief' of the nature of reality in (a). These assumptions necessarily tend to a predominantly inductive or mainly deductive theory of knowledge acquisition reflected in an epistemology. Ethical norms like the sanctity of human life and freedom are formulated at this level. (c) \"Ethos\" is the attempt to form the world we live in by growing an 'attitude' or participation in a mutually structured reality. All those who choose to participate in this reality, do it by 'taking responsibility for personal actions' in a social environment. More concrete ethical code like monogamy and what we consider to be 'true and correct behaviour' is systematised as 'dogma' at this level. (d) "Praxis" is ''doing'' the 'right' thing. It is the behaviour resulting from systematising (a), (b) and (c) as a Gestalt, where the whole is more than the sum of the parts. This behavioural level is again the basis for "Wahrnemung", repeating the cycle on an new level. Most important is to understand that this cycle does not now start from the previous position of departure; there is a 'new awareness' of the praxis due to the previous stages in the cycle, elevating the next cycle of "Wahrnemung" from the previous with a new understanding. This is the basis for the correct understanding of development. It is far more than a mere 'mechanistic' process. Another important point is that there is no start or end point in the cycle, every stage is on an elevated level to its previous position. A circle has a start and an end, which has actually no development; it is only a reaffirmation of what was before in a stagnant fundamentalism. Thus, a ''Paradigm'' can only be seen in the context of a ''Hermeneutical cycle'' in the ''Structure of the Paradigms''. It supersedes mere interpretation or just bringing understanding. It implies that Paradigms are developmental by nature, moving in a hermeneutical cycle instead of a process of recurring mechanistic circles. Describing a paradigm as an era, epic, model, weltanschauung, or any other term is hardly more than merely renaming the concept of a paradigm to some other known concept. I hope it opens another perspective. Comments are welcome! Lando L Lehmann ''Primary source:'' '"Paradigm Development in Systematic Theology"'', Dissertation at the University of South Africa (UNISA) by Lando L Lehmann, Nov 2004. :Edit: Contact me at LandSr>at
See other meanings of words starting from letter:
P
PA | PB | PC | PD | PE | PF | PG | PH | PI | PJ | PK | PL | PM | PN | PO | PR | PS | PT | PU | PW | PX | PY | PZ |Words begining with Paradigm:
Paradigm
Paradigm
Paradigm/Tract
Paradigmatic_analysis
Paradigmatic_segmentation_analysis
Paradigms
Paradigm_(disambiguation)
Paradigm_(experimental)
Paradigm_Associates
Paradigm_Atom
Paradigm_Atom
Paradigm_bias
Paradigm_City
Paradigm_City
Paradigm_Electronics
Paradigm_Electronics
Paradigm_project
Paradigm_Secure_Communications_Ltd
Paradigm_shift
Paradigm_shift
These materials are based on Wikipedia and licensed under the GNU FDL
YouTube.com videos better site than Turbo Tax 2007
