
A paradigm shift is the term first used by Thomas Samuel Kuhn in his famous 1962 book ''The Structure of Scientific Revolutions'' to describe the process and result of a change in basic assumptions within the ruling theory of science. It has since become widely applied to many other realms of human experience as well. ==Kuhnian Paradigm Shifts== An epistemology paradigm shift was called a scientific revolution by epistemologist and history of science Thomas Kuhn in his book ''The Structure of Scientific Revolutions''. A scientific revolution occurs, according to Kuhn, when scientists encounter anomalies which cannot be explained by the universally accepted paradigm within which scientific progress has thereto been made. The paradigm, in Kuhn's view, is not simply the current theory, but the entire worldview in which it exists, and all of the implications which come with it. There are anomalies for all paradigms, Kuhn maintained, that are brushed away as acceptable levels of error, or simply ignored and not dealt with (a principal argument Kuhn uses to reject Karl Popper's model of falsifiability as the key force involved in scientific change). Rather, according to Kuhn, anomalies have various levels of significance to the practitioners of science at the time. To put it in the context of early 20th century physics, some scientists found the problems with calculating Mercury's perihelion more troubling than the Michelson-Morley experiment results -- and some, the other way around. Kuhn's model of scientific change differs here, and in many places, from that of the logical positivists in that it puts an enhanced emphasis on the individual humans involved as scientists, rather than abstracting science into a purely logical or philosophical venture. When enough significant anomalies have accrued against a current paradigm, the scientific discipline is thrown into a state of ''crisis,'' according to Kuhn. During this crisis, new ideas, perhaps ones previously discarded, are tried. Eventually a ''new'' paradigm is formed, which gains its own new followers, and an intellectual "battle" takes place between the followers of the new paradigm and the hold-outs of the old paradigm. Again, looking at early 20th century physics, the transition between the James Clerk Maxwell and the Albert Einstein theory of relativity worldview was not instantaneous nor calm, and instead involved a protracted set of "attacks," both with empirical data as well as rhetorical or philosophical arguments, by both sides, with the Einsteinian theory winning out in the long-run. Again, the weighing of evidence and importance of new data was fit through the human sieve: some scientists found the simplicity of Einstein's equations to be most compelling, while some found them more complicated than the notion of Maxwell's aether which they banished. Some found Arthur Eddington photographs of light bending around the sun to be compelling, some questioned their accuracy and meaning. Sometimes the convincing force is just time itself and the human toll it takes, Kuhn pointed out, using a quote from Max Planck: "a new scientific truth does not triumph by convincing its opponents and making them see the light, but rather because its opponents eventually die, and a new generation grows up that is familiar with it." After a given discipline has changed from one paradigm to another, this is called, in Kuhn's terminology, a ''scientific revolution'' or a ''paradigm shift''. It is often this final conclusion -- the result of the long process -- that is meant when the term ''paradigm shift'' is used colloquially: simply the (often radical) change of worldview, without reference to the specificities of Kuhn's historical argument. A common misinterpretation of Kuhnian paradigms is the belief that the discovery of paradigm shifts and the dynamic nature of science (with its many opportunities for subjective judgments by scientists) is a case for relativism: the view that all kinds of belief systems are equal, such that magic (paranormal), religion or pseudoscience would be of equal working value to true science. Kuhn vehemently denies this interpretation and states that when a scientific paradigm is replaced by a new one, albeit through a complex social process, the new one is ''always better'', not just different. These claims of relativism are, however, tied to another claim that Kuhn does at least somewhat endorse: that the language and theories of different paradigms cannot be translated into one another or rationally evaluated against one another — that they are ''incommensurable''. This gave rise to much talk of different peoples and cultures having radically different worldviews or conceptual schemes — so different that whether or not one was better, they could not be understood by one another. However, the philosopher Donald Davidson (philosopher) published a highly-regarded essay in 1974, "On the Very Idea of a Conceptual Scheme," arguing that the notion that any languages or theories could be incommensurable with one another was itself incoherent. If this is correct, Kuhn's claims must be taken in a weaker sense than they often are. Furthermore, the hold of the Kuhnian analysis on social science has long been tenuous with the wide application of multi-paradigmatic approaches in order to understand complex human behaviour (see for example John Hassard, ''Sociology and Organisation Theory. Positivism, Paradigms and Postmodernity''. Cambridge University Press. 1993.) == Examples of paradigm shifts in science == There are a number of "classical cases" given for examples of Kuhnian paradigm shifts in science. The most common criticism of Kuhn from historians of science, though, is that the notion of a clean paradigm shift only seems to apply when one takes a very abstract view of the history of any given theory transition. When looking at the details, it has been argued, it becomes increasingly difficult to discern a coherent "paradigm" to shift in to or out of, unless one is looking only at pedagogy practices (such as textbooks, which is in fact a large part of the way Kuhn developed his theory). If paradigm shifts exist in the Kuhnian sense, the following are generally considered to be examples: * The transition from a Geocentric model cosmology to a Heliocentrism one. * The unification of classical physics by Isaac Newton into a coherent mechanical worldview. * The transition between the James Clerk Maxwell Luminiferous aether worldview and the Albert Einstein Theory of relativity worldview. * The transition between the worldview of Newtonian physics and the Albert Einstein Theory of relativity worldview. * The development of Quantum mechanics, which overthrew classical mechanics. * The development of Charles Darwin theory of evolution by natural selection, which overturned Jean-Baptiste Lamarck theories of evolution by inheritance of acquired characteristics. * The acceptance of Plate tectonics as the explanation for large-scale geologic changes. ==Other Uses== The term "paradigm shift" has found uses in other contexts, representing the notion of a major change in a certain thought-pattern — a radical change in personal beliefs, complex systems or organizations, replacing the former way of thinking or organizing with a radically different way of thinking or organizing: * Margaret Mead, noted anthropologist, shows a flashlight to the indigenous New Guinea people. * People blind since birth are suddenly enabled to see. * Development of new techniques in genetics impact long-standing assumptions in anthropology. * An apparently miraculous healing is witnessed by someone who has never believed in miracles. * Conversion experiences, and the resulting shifts in ideology and social behavior. Examples of paradigm shifts in complex systems and organizations: * The English monarchy with the signing of the Magna Carta. * The "Cambrian explosion" marking the end of the Pre-Cambrian Era. * Society with the invention of any of several innovations (fire, the wheel, gunpowder, the microchip, etc.). * Warfare and corporate structure with the development of the Prussia military model. The phrase has been abused in "marketing speak" and is often considered a meaningless buzzword in this context. ==See also== *Mindset *Culture bias *Cognitive bias *Notation bias *Confirmation bias *Infrastructure bias *Disruptive technology *Weltanschauung ==External links== *[http://ocw.mit.edu/OcwWeb/Electrical-Engineering-and-Computer-Science/6-933JThe-Structure-of-Engineering-RevolutionsFall2001/CourseHome/index.htm MIT 6.933J - The Structure of Engineering Revolutions]. From MIT OpenCourseWare, course materials (graduate level) for a course on the history of technology through a Thomas Kuhn lens. History of science Philosophy of science Epistemology
Paradigm shifts can also occur in complex systems and organizations. User:F. Lee Horn ---- That would be extrapolating to the nth degree to anthropomorphicize pre-cambrian monocellular organisms, very New Age! You earned 2 silver stars on your scribble book =). ---- Oh, wow! Like...kewl! Oh, BTW...it's "anthropomorphize." :) User:F. Lee Horn ---- Ooops, you got me! Must have had a paradigm shift and learned minor spelling mistakes only matter in the Paramecium village Þ ---- Not one of these examples illustrate's Thomas Kuhn's theory. Most of them I consider BS. And you have completely missed Kuhn's basic point that paradigm shifts can only be ''useful'' if they are punctuations of normal science. In fact disciplines which do not manage to spend most of their time nicely settled in to a paradigm are guaranteed to fail as sciences. (They may fail as sciences for other reasons as well but...) Perhaps we need the page rewritten? Say by the same person who wrote the Thomas Samuel Kuhn page? -BJT Hmmm. I began this page(although the revisionist Wiki history starts Jan 2002) with a small dictionary-style definition. It has grown! User:BF ---- I've tried to tighten up the writing, but it needs a lot more work. I used The Structure of Scientific Revolutions entry as a reference. Possibly a lot of the stuff here is redundant to that entry. - User:David Gerard 22:26, Jan 19, 2004 (UTC) ---- I tried to re-orientate it to be a bit more clear about what Kuhn was trying to get at, and re-organized the "examples" to reflect the nature of the shift, which is the result of the process, not just a list of achievements or discoveries. If anyone seriously objects to my understanding of this though, I'd be willing to talk about it. --User:Fastfission 22:02, 15 Jun 2004 (UTC) : A real improvement. The tightening up of the examples alone makes a big difference. User:Dandrake 03:22, Jun 17, 2004 (UTC) --- I am not sure if call-by-push-value can be regarded as a paradigm shift. I didn't know this concept before reading this wikipedia page and yet I am doing research in the area of programming languages. It looks like an interesting unifying work but it is maybe a bit early to compare it with the revolutionary works of Copernic, Newton or Darwin. User:Vincent Cremet == Comment on the examples that are presented in the article == * The transition from a Geocentric model cosmology to a Heliocentrism one. To my knowledge, the Copernican revolution was started by Galileo and Kepler. To my knowledge, Copernicus used the tools of the Ptolemaic paradigm: cycles and epicycles, and other means, and his model needed ''more'' of them than the geocentric ptolemaic model of Copernicus' time. Arguably, Copernicus' cosmology was the worst in the history of cosmology. The credit for being the first to present a heliocentric cosmology with scientific credibility should go to Kepler, the first to departure from the toolbox of the ptolemaic paradigm. It bothers me a bit that Kepler is not recieving full credit. * The unification of classical physics by Isaac Newton into a coherent mechanical worldview. This unification was normal science. Newton solved a huge puzzle. Contemporaries like Hooke, Wren and Huygens believed in an inverse square law for gravity, but they couldn't substantiate that mathematically. Arguably, Newton did start a paradigm shift in mathematics, Newton (and, independently, Leibniz) caused change in the thinking about what is mathematically well-founded. * The transition between the James Clerk Maxwell Luminiferous aether worldview and the Albert Einstein Theory of relativity worldview. This is a tricky one. The Maxwell equations are invariant under Lorentz transformation. Historically, the Maxwell equations were crucial in providing clues to special relativity, it was Einstein's main guidance. Henri Poincaré had written down all the equations of special relativity too, in his explorations of the mathematics of the Maxwell equations, but he hadn't published, because he didn't judge them helpful in elucidating physics. To this day, the Maxwell equations have not been superseeded.
It is quite astonishing that alhough Maxwell's visualisations to help him in finding the Maxwell equations were in a completely different direction than elektrodynamics was later to take, the equations themselves have stood the test of time. * The transition between the worldview of Newtonian physics and the Albert Einstein Theory of relativity worldview. Ever since the introduction of relativistic physics, physicists must be proficient in two different paradigms. That is, they must be able to conduct normal science in both newtonian physics, and in relativistic physics, depending on the circumstances. Also, physicists have learned that no theory should ever be considered the final word. Physicists are working hard to find the theory that will do to relativity what relativity did to newtonian physics. * The development of Quantum mechanics, which overthrew classical mechanics. That was a paradigm shift, but I wouldn't call it an overthrow. The theoretical physicists trying to find equations for Quantum mechanics had desparately little clues. One of their main tools to narrow down searches was that the Quantum calculation had to predict exactly the same things as classical electrodynamics; the predictions of classical electrodynamics had to be reproduced seamlessly. This is called the principle of complementarity. * The development of Charles Darwin theory of evolution by natural selection, which overturned Jean-Baptiste Lamarck theories of evolution by inheritance of acquired characteristics. To my knowledge, there was no such thing as 'lamarckian thinking' at the time. I'm inclined to say that the theory of darwinistic evolution turned a field of inquiry that was pre-scientific before on the road to being a field to conduct science in. * The acceptance of Plate tectonics as the explanation for large-scale geologic changes. The discovery of plate tectonics was a surprise, like the discovery of for example X-rays had been, but I'm not sure I would categorize it as a paradigm shift. There was no need to shift in thinking to new laws of geophysics. Then again, I don't know how the height of the Himalaya's was accounted for before. ::The question of whether paradigm shifts occur is of course one of philosophical and historical dispute, but ''if they do occur'' then the developments listed in the article are all considered to be examples of those. The most common criticism of Kuhn's model from philosophers and historians at the time it was first released were that his terms were proposed too discretely—paradigm shifts only seemed to occur in the way he described when you took a large view of the history, not when you got to the details. But this isn't really the forum to discuss all of that, though perhaps a note to the effect of what I just wrote might be useful. --User:Fastfission 02:58, 7 Feb 2005 (UTC) :::I think the examples that Thomas Kuhn gave in his book are excellent examples of paradigm shifts. I agree with you that common characteristics in the history of science should count, rather than the finer details.
On the other hand: I agree with Thomas Kuhn that very often superficial histories of science "embellish" the story, retrofitting it to modern expectations. I feel history should be very accurate. The shift in thinking from luminiferous ether to relativistic space-time was certainly a paradigm shift. Henri Poincaré had encountered al the relativistic equations in his own explorations, but he didn't attribute significance to them. Typically for a paradigm shift, the concept of luminiferous ether was abandoned after the paradigm shift. But the ''equations'' of Maxwell have stood the test of time. --User:Cleon Teunissen 13:12, 7 Feb 2005 (UTC) ::::Well, Poincaré was never a fan of relativity anyway, probably because of his love for mechanics, but that's really another story. The equations of Maxwell are still used though their intuitive meaning has changed quite a bit, which is what would concern Kuhn more. And nothing has really "stood the test of time" that is only 150 years old, a historian would note. ;-) --User:Fastfission 16:04, 7 Feb 2005 (UTC) :::::I put a lot of emphasis on engineering, that is the background of my opinion that the Maxwell equations have stood the test of time. It's like the history of concepts of the shape of the earth. The ancient greek philosophers concluded on the basis of the evidence available at the time that the earth is spherical in shape. Later Newton showed it had to be an ellipsoid, due to the rotation around its axis. I'm not very demanding in that respect: Newton's science is superior, but the deduction that the earth is spherical has not been invalidated, in my judgement. --User:Cleon Teunissen 10:25, 13 Feb 2005 (UTC) ==Laymen vs expert terms examples== I find the "laymen terms" section ''in principle'' to be very unencyclopedic. Either it should be dropped, or the "expert terms" section should be rewritten in a way which is more clear. I also find the "laymen terms" section ''in content'' to be very poorl—paradigm shifts are not shifts "from folly" or even "misconceptions" to something "better conceived," in the Kuhnian definition. They are not considered to be movements from "false to true" but instead are from "false to false" (or, alternatively, "true to true"). That's why as a concept it is interesting—if it was just a shift of conceptions, from false ones to true ones, it wouldn't be any different than positivist conceptions of theory change. I think the current "lay" formulation is misleading at best—if there is a "lay" formulation, it is just that a "paradigm shift" means to "think outside the box" imposed by previous experience. In any event, I think the section ought to be dropped, and will do so soon unless someone objects. --User:Fastfission 02:58, 7 Feb 2005 (UTC) :I also think the 'layman section' should be dropped, for the reasons given above. --User:Cleon Teunissen 12:53, 7 Feb 2005 (UTC) : It's a week later now, and no objection has been raised to dropping the "layman terms section". :Also, I think the expert terms section does not fully represent Thomas Kuhn. I think the concept of paradigm shift is popperianized in that section. Here is how I understand Thomas Kuhn: judging the anomalies as critical becomes general in the scientific community after a paradigm shift. The judgement that a crisis was on is made in retrospect. A minority (or a single person) in the scientific community is far earlier in judging a crisis is on, and they will set their aim on revolutionary science. If that minority manages to present a paradigm with scientific credibility, then a paradigm shift throughout the entire scientific community can take place. Whether the paradigm shift spreads to the entire community is up to the individual judgement of the members of the community. During the period of paradigm shift both paradigms are defensible with sound arguments. If a paradigm shift takes place, then after years of normal science the weight of evidence confirming the superiority of the new paradigm piles up. Superficial histories of science tend to mock early scientists for not seeing that evidence straight away. --User:Cleon Teunissen 09:47, 13 Feb 2005 (UTC) == meta-paradigmatic science == In many examples of paradigm shift, both the concepts and the toolbox are replaced. After Kepler and Newton, the ptolemaic toolbox was abandoned; it had been rendered obsolete. However, after relativistic physics was introduced, the newtonian toolbox remained the main toolbox of the physics community. The same is valid for electrodynamics. To be an engineer in electrodynamics, you must be an expert in conducting normal science in classical electrodynamics. There is a more profound paradigm shift involved here, that is not described by Thomas Kuhn. Before the introduction of special relativity, it was considered normal to believe that newtonian dynamics was 'the final word'.
The introduction of relativistic dynamics showed that it is wrong to ''believe'' that the visualisations that have helped in finding the equations of the theory are in any way true. The mathematics of a theory is likely to last, the interpretation of the theory is certain to get replaced someday.
The article states that anomalies will throw a science in a state of crisis. That statement is clearly wrong: anomalies have never thrown a science in a state of crisis. (Decades later, superficial histories may state that there was a crisis back then). In current physics, all physicists are eagerly awaiting the successor to general relativity and quantum mechanics, but at the same time they are confidently continuing to do normal science in general relativity and quantum mechanics. In physics it is now part of the expectation pattern that multiple paradigms will be current simultaneously. I propose that there is a fourth phase: (1) pre-scientific, (2) normal science, (3) revolutionary science, (4) meta-paradigmatic science. In my opinion, relativistic physics and quantum physics have ushered physics into this fourth phase.
The article should only represent the views of Thomas Kuhn, there is no point in elaborating beyond the views of Thomas Kuhn. But I feel it is wrong to state that the transition from newtonian physics to relativistic physics was a typical example of a paradigm shift; newtonian physics has been retained, and not just out of some sort of lazyness, newtonian physics has been retained because it is exceptionally good. --User:Cleon Teunissen 14:13, 7 Feb 2005 (UTC) :As long as you understand that the article must reflect Kuhn's view (whether you agree or not).. Newtonian physics as been "maintained" in a certain sense (practical, day to day), but its worldview does not. Kuhn's theory is more about worldviews than it is equations. You can used Newtonian gravitation equations for pretty good approximations of the orbit of Jupiter, but nobody considers gravity to be what Newton did anymore, and don't use Newtonian conceptions when thinking about the limits of their knowledge or how to propose new experiments. That's what Kuhn cares about—how paradigms affect experimental practice (which might be a limitation, one could fairly argue)—not whether or not the equations are still around. At least, that's my understanding of it, from a number of his books. --User:Fastfission 16:09, 7 Feb 2005 (UTC) ::Yes, I agree that today's deep probing experiments do not test newtonian conceptions; that is a thing of the past. And I agree that Kuhn is focused on conceptions.
To this day, cutting edge technology is being developed by engineers in fields that require newtonian thinking only (I recently came across the coriolis flow meter; amazing technology External link: [http://www.emersonprocess.com/micromotion/tutor/default.html the Micro Motion tutorial]
I think that it is significant that there will always be employment for newtonian normal science. This means that I see the problem-solving of how to implement fundamental knowledge into working devices as a part of normal science. Its not just that the equations are still around, the thinking is still around, and it is still producing cutting edge technology.
So I feel it is meaningful to make a distinction between paradigm shifts after which the previous concepts are abandoned, and paradigm shifts after which the previous concepts remain productive, and this affects my judgement on what to consider typical examples of a paradigm shift. --User:Cleon Teunissen 17:29, 7 Feb 2005 (UTC) :::Well, I'm not a physicist, but it doesn't to me that Newtonian mechanics generates a "normal science" program anymore in the Kuhnian sense, and has been regulated down to being a "tool" (or an "instrument," if you may). The transition between the Newtonian worldview and the Relativistic worldview is generally considered a typical example, whether or not you find it to have been a good example of a paradigm shift (your objection seems to be about the definition of paradigm shift itself more than whether this is an example of one). An alternative conception of the Kuhnian framework you might find interesting is Peter Galison's concept of "trading zones," which takes instruments and tools into account more than the Kuhnian version does (and isn't as strict about the boundaries of one worldview to another). --User:Fastfission 18:03, 7 Feb 2005 (UTC)
See other meanings of words starting from letter:
Words begining with Paradigm_shift:
Paradigm_shift
Paradigm_shift
Paradigm shift
A paradigm shift is the term first used by Thomas Samuel Kuhn in his famous 1962 book ''The Structure of Scientific Revolutions'' to describe the process and result of a change in basic assumptions within the ruling theory of science. It has since become widely applied to many other realms of human experience as well. ==Kuhnian Paradigm Shifts== An epistemology paradigm shift was called a scientific revolution by epistemologist and history of science Thomas Kuhn in his book ''The Structure of Scientific Revolutions''. A scientific revolution occurs, according to Kuhn, when scientists encounter anomalies which cannot be explained by the universally accepted paradigm within which scientific progress has thereto been made. The paradigm, in Kuhn's view, is not simply the current theory, but the entire worldview in which it exists, and all of the implications which come with it. There are anomalies for all paradigms, Kuhn maintained, that are brushed away as acceptable levels of error, or simply ignored and not dealt with (a principal argument Kuhn uses to reject Karl Popper's model of falsifiability as the key force involved in scientific change). Rather, according to Kuhn, anomalies have various levels of significance to the practitioners of science at the time. To put it in the context of early 20th century physics, some scientists found the problems with calculating Mercury's perihelion more troubling than the Michelson-Morley experiment results -- and some, the other way around. Kuhn's model of scientific change differs here, and in many places, from that of the logical positivists in that it puts an enhanced emphasis on the individual humans involved as scientists, rather than abstracting science into a purely logical or philosophical venture. When enough significant anomalies have accrued against a current paradigm, the scientific discipline is thrown into a state of ''crisis,'' according to Kuhn. During this crisis, new ideas, perhaps ones previously discarded, are tried. Eventually a ''new'' paradigm is formed, which gains its own new followers, and an intellectual "battle" takes place between the followers of the new paradigm and the hold-outs of the old paradigm. Again, looking at early 20th century physics, the transition between the James Clerk Maxwell and the Albert Einstein theory of relativity worldview was not instantaneous nor calm, and instead involved a protracted set of "attacks," both with empirical data as well as rhetorical or philosophical arguments, by both sides, with the Einsteinian theory winning out in the long-run. Again, the weighing of evidence and importance of new data was fit through the human sieve: some scientists found the simplicity of Einstein's equations to be most compelling, while some found them more complicated than the notion of Maxwell's aether which they banished. Some found Arthur Eddington photographs of light bending around the sun to be compelling, some questioned their accuracy and meaning. Sometimes the convincing force is just time itself and the human toll it takes, Kuhn pointed out, using a quote from Max Planck: "a new scientific truth does not triumph by convincing its opponents and making them see the light, but rather because its opponents eventually die, and a new generation grows up that is familiar with it." After a given discipline has changed from one paradigm to another, this is called, in Kuhn's terminology, a ''scientific revolution'' or a ''paradigm shift''. It is often this final conclusion -- the result of the long process -- that is meant when the term ''paradigm shift'' is used colloquially: simply the (often radical) change of worldview, without reference to the specificities of Kuhn's historical argument. A common misinterpretation of Kuhnian paradigms is the belief that the discovery of paradigm shifts and the dynamic nature of science (with its many opportunities for subjective judgments by scientists) is a case for relativism: the view that all kinds of belief systems are equal, such that magic (paranormal), religion or pseudoscience would be of equal working value to true science. Kuhn vehemently denies this interpretation and states that when a scientific paradigm is replaced by a new one, albeit through a complex social process, the new one is ''always better'', not just different. These claims of relativism are, however, tied to another claim that Kuhn does at least somewhat endorse: that the language and theories of different paradigms cannot be translated into one another or rationally evaluated against one another — that they are ''incommensurable''. This gave rise to much talk of different peoples and cultures having radically different worldviews or conceptual schemes — so different that whether or not one was better, they could not be understood by one another. However, the philosopher Donald Davidson (philosopher) published a highly-regarded essay in 1974, "On the Very Idea of a Conceptual Scheme," arguing that the notion that any languages or theories could be incommensurable with one another was itself incoherent. If this is correct, Kuhn's claims must be taken in a weaker sense than they often are. Furthermore, the hold of the Kuhnian analysis on social science has long been tenuous with the wide application of multi-paradigmatic approaches in order to understand complex human behaviour (see for example John Hassard, ''Sociology and Organisation Theory. Positivism, Paradigms and Postmodernity''. Cambridge University Press. 1993.) == Examples of paradigm shifts in science == There are a number of "classical cases" given for examples of Kuhnian paradigm shifts in science. The most common criticism of Kuhn from historians of science, though, is that the notion of a clean paradigm shift only seems to apply when one takes a very abstract view of the history of any given theory transition. When looking at the details, it has been argued, it becomes increasingly difficult to discern a coherent "paradigm" to shift in to or out of, unless one is looking only at pedagogy practices (such as textbooks, which is in fact a large part of the way Kuhn developed his theory). If paradigm shifts exist in the Kuhnian sense, the following are generally considered to be examples: * The transition from a Geocentric model cosmology to a Heliocentrism one. * The unification of classical physics by Isaac Newton into a coherent mechanical worldview. * The transition between the James Clerk Maxwell Luminiferous aether worldview and the Albert Einstein Theory of relativity worldview. * The transition between the worldview of Newtonian physics and the Albert Einstein Theory of relativity worldview. * The development of Quantum mechanics, which overthrew classical mechanics. * The development of Charles Darwin theory of evolution by natural selection, which overturned Jean-Baptiste Lamarck theories of evolution by inheritance of acquired characteristics. * The acceptance of Plate tectonics as the explanation for large-scale geologic changes. ==Other Uses== The term "paradigm shift" has found uses in other contexts, representing the notion of a major change in a certain thought-pattern — a radical change in personal beliefs, complex systems or organizations, replacing the former way of thinking or organizing with a radically different way of thinking or organizing: * Margaret Mead, noted anthropologist, shows a flashlight to the indigenous New Guinea people. * People blind since birth are suddenly enabled to see. * Development of new techniques in genetics impact long-standing assumptions in anthropology. * An apparently miraculous healing is witnessed by someone who has never believed in miracles. * Conversion experiences, and the resulting shifts in ideology and social behavior. Examples of paradigm shifts in complex systems and organizations: * The English monarchy with the signing of the Magna Carta. * The "Cambrian explosion" marking the end of the Pre-Cambrian Era. * Society with the invention of any of several innovations (fire, the wheel, gunpowder, the microchip, etc.). * Warfare and corporate structure with the development of the Prussia military model. The phrase has been abused in "marketing speak" and is often considered a meaningless buzzword in this context. ==See also== *Mindset *Culture bias *Cognitive bias *Notation bias *Confirmation bias *Infrastructure bias *Disruptive technology *Weltanschauung ==External links== *[http://ocw.mit.edu/OcwWeb/Electrical-Engineering-and-Computer-Science/6-933JThe-Structure-of-Engineering-RevolutionsFall2001/CourseHome/index.htm MIT 6.933J - The Structure of Engineering Revolutions]. From MIT OpenCourseWare, course materials (graduate level) for a course on the history of technology through a Thomas Kuhn lens. History of science Philosophy of science Epistemology
Paradigm shift
Paradigm shifts can also occur in complex systems and organizations. User:F. Lee Horn ---- That would be extrapolating to the nth degree to anthropomorphicize pre-cambrian monocellular organisms, very New Age! You earned 2 silver stars on your scribble book =). ---- Oh, wow! Like...kewl! Oh, BTW...it's "anthropomorphize." :) User:F. Lee Horn ---- Ooops, you got me! Must have had a paradigm shift and learned minor spelling mistakes only matter in the Paramecium village Þ ---- Not one of these examples illustrate's Thomas Kuhn's theory. Most of them I consider BS. And you have completely missed Kuhn's basic point that paradigm shifts can only be ''useful'' if they are punctuations of normal science. In fact disciplines which do not manage to spend most of their time nicely settled in to a paradigm are guaranteed to fail as sciences. (They may fail as sciences for other reasons as well but...) Perhaps we need the page rewritten? Say by the same person who wrote the Thomas Samuel Kuhn page? -BJT Hmmm. I began this page(although the revisionist Wiki history starts Jan 2002) with a small dictionary-style definition. It has grown! User:BF ---- I've tried to tighten up the writing, but it needs a lot more work. I used The Structure of Scientific Revolutions entry as a reference. Possibly a lot of the stuff here is redundant to that entry. - User:David Gerard 22:26, Jan 19, 2004 (UTC) ---- I tried to re-orientate it to be a bit more clear about what Kuhn was trying to get at, and re-organized the "examples" to reflect the nature of the shift, which is the result of the process, not just a list of achievements or discoveries. If anyone seriously objects to my understanding of this though, I'd be willing to talk about it. --User:Fastfission 22:02, 15 Jun 2004 (UTC) : A real improvement. The tightening up of the examples alone makes a big difference. User:Dandrake 03:22, Jun 17, 2004 (UTC) --- I am not sure if call-by-push-value can be regarded as a paradigm shift. I didn't know this concept before reading this wikipedia page and yet I am doing research in the area of programming languages. It looks like an interesting unifying work but it is maybe a bit early to compare it with the revolutionary works of Copernic, Newton or Darwin. User:Vincent Cremet == Comment on the examples that are presented in the article == * The transition from a Geocentric model cosmology to a Heliocentrism one. To my knowledge, the Copernican revolution was started by Galileo and Kepler. To my knowledge, Copernicus used the tools of the Ptolemaic paradigm: cycles and epicycles, and other means, and his model needed ''more'' of them than the geocentric ptolemaic model of Copernicus' time. Arguably, Copernicus' cosmology was the worst in the history of cosmology. The credit for being the first to present a heliocentric cosmology with scientific credibility should go to Kepler, the first to departure from the toolbox of the ptolemaic paradigm. It bothers me a bit that Kepler is not recieving full credit. * The unification of classical physics by Isaac Newton into a coherent mechanical worldview. This unification was normal science. Newton solved a huge puzzle. Contemporaries like Hooke, Wren and Huygens believed in an inverse square law for gravity, but they couldn't substantiate that mathematically. Arguably, Newton did start a paradigm shift in mathematics, Newton (and, independently, Leibniz) caused change in the thinking about what is mathematically well-founded. * The transition between the James Clerk Maxwell Luminiferous aether worldview and the Albert Einstein Theory of relativity worldview. This is a tricky one. The Maxwell equations are invariant under Lorentz transformation. Historically, the Maxwell equations were crucial in providing clues to special relativity, it was Einstein's main guidance. Henri Poincaré had written down all the equations of special relativity too, in his explorations of the mathematics of the Maxwell equations, but he hadn't published, because he didn't judge them helpful in elucidating physics. To this day, the Maxwell equations have not been superseeded.
It is quite astonishing that alhough Maxwell's visualisations to help him in finding the Maxwell equations were in a completely different direction than elektrodynamics was later to take, the equations themselves have stood the test of time. * The transition between the worldview of Newtonian physics and the Albert Einstein Theory of relativity worldview. Ever since the introduction of relativistic physics, physicists must be proficient in two different paradigms. That is, they must be able to conduct normal science in both newtonian physics, and in relativistic physics, depending on the circumstances. Also, physicists have learned that no theory should ever be considered the final word. Physicists are working hard to find the theory that will do to relativity what relativity did to newtonian physics. * The development of Quantum mechanics, which overthrew classical mechanics. That was a paradigm shift, but I wouldn't call it an overthrow. The theoretical physicists trying to find equations for Quantum mechanics had desparately little clues. One of their main tools to narrow down searches was that the Quantum calculation had to predict exactly the same things as classical electrodynamics; the predictions of classical electrodynamics had to be reproduced seamlessly. This is called the principle of complementarity. * The development of Charles Darwin theory of evolution by natural selection, which overturned Jean-Baptiste Lamarck theories of evolution by inheritance of acquired characteristics. To my knowledge, there was no such thing as 'lamarckian thinking' at the time. I'm inclined to say that the theory of darwinistic evolution turned a field of inquiry that was pre-scientific before on the road to being a field to conduct science in. * The acceptance of Plate tectonics as the explanation for large-scale geologic changes. The discovery of plate tectonics was a surprise, like the discovery of for example X-rays had been, but I'm not sure I would categorize it as a paradigm shift. There was no need to shift in thinking to new laws of geophysics. Then again, I don't know how the height of the Himalaya's was accounted for before. ::The question of whether paradigm shifts occur is of course one of philosophical and historical dispute, but ''if they do occur'' then the developments listed in the article are all considered to be examples of those. The most common criticism of Kuhn's model from philosophers and historians at the time it was first released were that his terms were proposed too discretely—paradigm shifts only seemed to occur in the way he described when you took a large view of the history, not when you got to the details. But this isn't really the forum to discuss all of that, though perhaps a note to the effect of what I just wrote might be useful. --User:Fastfission 02:58, 7 Feb 2005 (UTC) :::I think the examples that Thomas Kuhn gave in his book are excellent examples of paradigm shifts. I agree with you that common characteristics in the history of science should count, rather than the finer details.
On the other hand: I agree with Thomas Kuhn that very often superficial histories of science "embellish" the story, retrofitting it to modern expectations. I feel history should be very accurate. The shift in thinking from luminiferous ether to relativistic space-time was certainly a paradigm shift. Henri Poincaré had encountered al the relativistic equations in his own explorations, but he didn't attribute significance to them. Typically for a paradigm shift, the concept of luminiferous ether was abandoned after the paradigm shift. But the ''equations'' of Maxwell have stood the test of time. --User:Cleon Teunissen 13:12, 7 Feb 2005 (UTC) ::::Well, Poincaré was never a fan of relativity anyway, probably because of his love for mechanics, but that's really another story. The equations of Maxwell are still used though their intuitive meaning has changed quite a bit, which is what would concern Kuhn more. And nothing has really "stood the test of time" that is only 150 years old, a historian would note. ;-) --User:Fastfission 16:04, 7 Feb 2005 (UTC) :::::I put a lot of emphasis on engineering, that is the background of my opinion that the Maxwell equations have stood the test of time. It's like the history of concepts of the shape of the earth. The ancient greek philosophers concluded on the basis of the evidence available at the time that the earth is spherical in shape. Later Newton showed it had to be an ellipsoid, due to the rotation around its axis. I'm not very demanding in that respect: Newton's science is superior, but the deduction that the earth is spherical has not been invalidated, in my judgement. --User:Cleon Teunissen 10:25, 13 Feb 2005 (UTC) ==Laymen vs expert terms examples== I find the "laymen terms" section ''in principle'' to be very unencyclopedic. Either it should be dropped, or the "expert terms" section should be rewritten in a way which is more clear. I also find the "laymen terms" section ''in content'' to be very poorl—paradigm shifts are not shifts "from folly" or even "misconceptions" to something "better conceived," in the Kuhnian definition. They are not considered to be movements from "false to true" but instead are from "false to false" (or, alternatively, "true to true"). That's why as a concept it is interesting—if it was just a shift of conceptions, from false ones to true ones, it wouldn't be any different than positivist conceptions of theory change. I think the current "lay" formulation is misleading at best—if there is a "lay" formulation, it is just that a "paradigm shift" means to "think outside the box" imposed by previous experience. In any event, I think the section ought to be dropped, and will do so soon unless someone objects. --User:Fastfission 02:58, 7 Feb 2005 (UTC) :I also think the 'layman section' should be dropped, for the reasons given above. --User:Cleon Teunissen 12:53, 7 Feb 2005 (UTC) : It's a week later now, and no objection has been raised to dropping the "layman terms section". :Also, I think the expert terms section does not fully represent Thomas Kuhn. I think the concept of paradigm shift is popperianized in that section. Here is how I understand Thomas Kuhn: judging the anomalies as critical becomes general in the scientific community after a paradigm shift. The judgement that a crisis was on is made in retrospect. A minority (or a single person) in the scientific community is far earlier in judging a crisis is on, and they will set their aim on revolutionary science. If that minority manages to present a paradigm with scientific credibility, then a paradigm shift throughout the entire scientific community can take place. Whether the paradigm shift spreads to the entire community is up to the individual judgement of the members of the community. During the period of paradigm shift both paradigms are defensible with sound arguments. If a paradigm shift takes place, then after years of normal science the weight of evidence confirming the superiority of the new paradigm piles up. Superficial histories of science tend to mock early scientists for not seeing that evidence straight away. --User:Cleon Teunissen 09:47, 13 Feb 2005 (UTC) == meta-paradigmatic science == In many examples of paradigm shift, both the concepts and the toolbox are replaced. After Kepler and Newton, the ptolemaic toolbox was abandoned; it had been rendered obsolete. However, after relativistic physics was introduced, the newtonian toolbox remained the main toolbox of the physics community. The same is valid for electrodynamics. To be an engineer in electrodynamics, you must be an expert in conducting normal science in classical electrodynamics. There is a more profound paradigm shift involved here, that is not described by Thomas Kuhn. Before the introduction of special relativity, it was considered normal to believe that newtonian dynamics was 'the final word'.
The introduction of relativistic dynamics showed that it is wrong to ''believe'' that the visualisations that have helped in finding the equations of the theory are in any way true. The mathematics of a theory is likely to last, the interpretation of the theory is certain to get replaced someday.
The article states that anomalies will throw a science in a state of crisis. That statement is clearly wrong: anomalies have never thrown a science in a state of crisis. (Decades later, superficial histories may state that there was a crisis back then). In current physics, all physicists are eagerly awaiting the successor to general relativity and quantum mechanics, but at the same time they are confidently continuing to do normal science in general relativity and quantum mechanics. In physics it is now part of the expectation pattern that multiple paradigms will be current simultaneously. I propose that there is a fourth phase: (1) pre-scientific, (2) normal science, (3) revolutionary science, (4) meta-paradigmatic science. In my opinion, relativistic physics and quantum physics have ushered physics into this fourth phase.
The article should only represent the views of Thomas Kuhn, there is no point in elaborating beyond the views of Thomas Kuhn. But I feel it is wrong to state that the transition from newtonian physics to relativistic physics was a typical example of a paradigm shift; newtonian physics has been retained, and not just out of some sort of lazyness, newtonian physics has been retained because it is exceptionally good. --User:Cleon Teunissen 14:13, 7 Feb 2005 (UTC) :As long as you understand that the article must reflect Kuhn's view (whether you agree or not).. Newtonian physics as been "maintained" in a certain sense (practical, day to day), but its worldview does not. Kuhn's theory is more about worldviews than it is equations. You can used Newtonian gravitation equations for pretty good approximations of the orbit of Jupiter, but nobody considers gravity to be what Newton did anymore, and don't use Newtonian conceptions when thinking about the limits of their knowledge or how to propose new experiments. That's what Kuhn cares about—how paradigms affect experimental practice (which might be a limitation, one could fairly argue)—not whether or not the equations are still around. At least, that's my understanding of it, from a number of his books. --User:Fastfission 16:09, 7 Feb 2005 (UTC) ::Yes, I agree that today's deep probing experiments do not test newtonian conceptions; that is a thing of the past. And I agree that Kuhn is focused on conceptions.
To this day, cutting edge technology is being developed by engineers in fields that require newtonian thinking only (I recently came across the coriolis flow meter; amazing technology External link: [http://www.emersonprocess.com/micromotion/tutor/default.html the Micro Motion tutorial]
I think that it is significant that there will always be employment for newtonian normal science. This means that I see the problem-solving of how to implement fundamental knowledge into working devices as a part of normal science. Its not just that the equations are still around, the thinking is still around, and it is still producing cutting edge technology.
So I feel it is meaningful to make a distinction between paradigm shifts after which the previous concepts are abandoned, and paradigm shifts after which the previous concepts remain productive, and this affects my judgement on what to consider typical examples of a paradigm shift. --User:Cleon Teunissen 17:29, 7 Feb 2005 (UTC) :::Well, I'm not a physicist, but it doesn't to me that Newtonian mechanics generates a "normal science" program anymore in the Kuhnian sense, and has been regulated down to being a "tool" (or an "instrument," if you may). The transition between the Newtonian worldview and the Relativistic worldview is generally considered a typical example, whether or not you find it to have been a good example of a paradigm shift (your objection seems to be about the definition of paradigm shift itself more than whether this is an example of one). An alternative conception of the Kuhnian framework you might find interesting is Peter Galison's concept of "trading zones," which takes instruments and tools into account more than the Kuhnian version does (and isn't as strict about the boundaries of one worldview to another). --User:Fastfission 18:03, 7 Feb 2005 (UTC)
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_shift:
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
