User Tag List

Results 1 to 7 of 7

  1. #1
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Posts
    336

    Default Does Natural Science Encourage a Narrow Mind?

    Does Natural Science Encourage a Narrow Mind?

    Paradigm directed science encourages the scientist to steadfastly adhere to carefully crafted narrow minded thinking. Because “normal science” has been so successful in achieving its narrow goals I claim that our whole society has become dangerously enchanted into viewing all domains of knowledge in restricted narrow constraints.

    Normal science is a puzzle-solving enterprise. Normal science is a slow accumulation of knowledge by a methodical step-by-step process undertaken by a group of scientists.

    ‘Paradigm’ is a word that was given great meaning and clarity by Thomas Kuhn in his book “The Structure of Scientific Revolutions”.

    “One of the things a scientific community acquires with a paradigm is a criterion for choosing problems that, while the paradigm is taken for granted, can be assumed to have solutions…A paradigm can, for that matter, even insulate the community from those socially important problems that are not reducible to the puzzle form, because they cannot be stated in terms of the conceptual and instrumental tools the paradigm supplies.”

    The author notes that all “real science is normally a habit-governed, puzzle-solving activity” and not a Critical Thinking activity. Paradigm and not hypothesis is the active meaning for the ‘new image of science’. Paradigm is neither a theory nor a metaphysical viewpoint.

    Kuhn’s new image of science—the paradigm—is an artifact, a way of seeing, and is a set of scientific problem solving habits. Normal science means research based upon one or more past achievements ‘that some particular community acknowledges for a time as supplying the foundation for its further practice…and these achievements are sufficiently unprecedented to attract an enduring group pf adherents away from competing modes of scientific activity’ furthermore they are sufficiently open-ended to leave all sorts of problems for the redefined group of practitioners to solve’. Such achievements Kuhn defines as paradigm.

    “A puzzle-solving paradigm, unlike a puzzle-solving hypothetico-deductive system, has also got to be a concrete ‘way of seeing’.”

    Kuhn constantly refers to the ‘gestalt switch’ when discussing the switch in reference from one paradigm to another as ‘re-seeing’ action. Each paradigm has been constructed to be a ‘way-of-seeing’. Here Kuhn is speaking not about what the paradigm is but how the paradigm is used. He is defining a paradigm as a newly developed puzzle-solving artifact that is used analogically to understand another artifact; for example, using wire and beads strung together to facilitate understanding the protein molecule.

    I think that we place “Science” (meaning normal science) on too high a pedestal and thereby distort our comprehension of political and social problems. We cannot solve social and political problems like we solve the questions formed by the normal sciences.

    Do you think that the techniques of normal science are directly applicable for solving the social and political problems of society?

  2. #2
    From the Undertow CuriousFeeling's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    MBTI
    INfJ
    Enneagram
    4w5 sp/sx
    Socionics
    EII
    Posts
    3,456

    Default

    Some problems, yes, but not all of them. However, I think systems thinking has an edge to approaching problem solving in a broader, more long term perspective. If we search for a particular leverage point to solve a problem by viewing the big picture of the problem, how each segment of the problem interacts with each other, then a solution can be found. While it may be efficient and much more organized to have each domain of knowledge compartmentalized, in order to solve major problems, multiple domains of knowledge should be used.

    Normal science is effective for creating a body of knowledge, to help us understand the processes that occur behind phenomena we observe (be it political and social). On the other hand, systems thinking focuses on the relationships between sets of phenomena on each other, which I think is much more effective in solving problems. We can find a specific element in the structure of the problem that will change the course of behavior in the long run, and know what variables to tweak to achieve desired end results.
    [SIGPIC][/SIGPIC]

    Johari/Nohari

    “Thoughts are the shadows of our feelings -- always darker, emptier and simpler.”
    ― Friedrich Nietzsche




  3. #3
    & Badger, Ratty and Toad Mole's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Posts
    18,536

    Smile All the Pride of an Obedient Child

    Quote Originally Posted by coberst View Post
    Do you think that the techniques of normal science are directly applicable for solving the social and political problems of society?
    Sure, there is problem solving and paradigm thinking.

    The academic discipline called, "The History of Ideas", is a good basis for paradigm thinking.

    And considering that paradigm thinking tickles the brain into ecstasy, I wonder why anyone bothers with problem solving.

    But problem solving is overwhelmingly the norm as it is on these pages.

    But I note that they solve problems with all the pride of an obedient child.

  4. #4
    Gotta catch you all! Blackmail!'s Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    MBTI
    ENTP
    Enneagram
    7w8
    Posts
    2,934

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by coberst View Post
    I think that we place “Science” (meaning normal science) on too high a pedestal and thereby distort our comprehension of political and social problems. We cannot solve social and political problems like we solve the questions formed by the normal sciences.

    Do you think that the techniques of normal science are directly applicable for solving the social and political problems of society?

    All these questions are debated pretty exhaustively in this book written by Jügen Habermas: "Technology and Science as Ideology" (original title "Technik und Wissenschaft als Ideologie", 1968, English translation and American edition in 1971)
    "A man who only drinks water has a secret to hide from his fellow-men" -Baudelaire

    7w8 SCUxI

  5. #5
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Posts
    336

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Blackmail! View Post
    All these questions are debated pretty exhaustively in this book written by Jügen Habermas: "Technology and Science as Ideology" (original title "Technik und Wissenschaft als Ideologie", 1968, English translation and American edition in 1971)
    Habermas is a very tuff read! Do you know of a good second source for his theories?

  6. #6
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Posts
    336

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Victor View Post
    Sure, there is problem solving and paradigm thinking.

    The academic discipline called, "The History of Ideas", is a good basis for paradigm thinking.

    And considering that paradigm thinking tickles the brain into ecstasy, I wonder why anyone bothers with problem solving.

    But problem solving is overwhelmingly the norm as it is on these pages.

    But I note that they solve problems with all the pride of an obedient child.


    Within the category “problem” there are at least two subcategories: “puzzle” and “paradox”.

    Quickie from wiki:
    A problem is an obstacle which makes it difficult to achieve a desired goal, objective or purpose. It refers to a situation, condition, or issue that is yet unresolved. In a broad sense, a problem exists when an individual becomes aware of a significant difference between what actually is and what is desired.


    Problems that are a puzzle

    ‘Normal science’, as described by Thomas Kuhn in his book The Structure of Scientific Revolutions, is the science of means, controlled generally by a paradigm. We normally use the word ‘science’, which has more than one meaning, to mean the ‘normal science’ that which Kuhn speaks of. Science, to the laity, is a word encompassing technology and probably all that is good about the human ability to reason. I suspect the average person often wonders why everyone cannot be scientific about developing solutions for all problems. Why cannot we be scientific and rational in solving all our problems?

    The college student of physics studies the paradigms of the science of physics to qualify for acceptance into that particular profession. From these paradigms patterns of recognition and routines and algorithms for solutions have evolved and are memorized by all students who wish to join that particular profession. An algorithm is a step-by-step process for solving a problem. A simple example of an algorithm is the process we learned to accomplish long division.

    Normal Science involves itself only in problems definable by paradigms and algorithms. Normal Science is successful because it deals only with these monological problems. These problems are circumscribed by the paradigm and contain many algorithms for guiding the practitioner into the proper mode for solution of the problem.

    Normal Scientific research is devoted to accumulating evidence that supports and expands the horizon of the accepted paradigm. The scientific researcher anticipates the answer and organizes the research effort to verify that anticipated result. Science does not perform experiments upon matters wherein the results are not expected. This is the nature of puzzle solving. The end is known in great detail and that which is in doubt is the various ways of verifying that anticipated end. The prize winning puzzle solver is he or she with the cleverest efforts to reach the anticipated end result. Puzzles are problems that test the ingenuity and skill in puzzle solutions.

    The paradigm instructs the logic--the principles and criteria of validity of inference and demonstration--of the particular domain of knowledge encompassed by that paradigm. The logic of the paradigm insulates the professional group from problems that are unsolvable by that paradigm. One reason that Normal Science progresses so rapidly and with such assurance is because the logic of that paradigm allows the practitioners to work on problems that only their lack of ingenuity will keep them from solving.

    The natural sciences are primarily puzzle solving operations. The natural sciences are useful for logical thinking but the uses of scientific learning are that most judgments required in life are not puzzle like.

    Problems that are a paradox

    Quickie from wiki:
    A paradox is a statement or group of statements that leads to a contradiction or a situation which defies intuition…The word paradox is often used interchangeably with contradiction.


    An example of a paradox might be narcissism, which is both necessary and detrimental to human survival.

    The fetus resting in the womb is in a state of absolute narcissism. Freud says “By being born we have made the step from an absolute self-sufficient narcissism to the perception of a changing external world and the beginning of the discovery of objects.” The absolute self-narcissism is partially dissolved and divided with objects.

    The “normal” person, in maturity, has made an apportionment of narcissistic energy between the self and the other in a manner that society finds acceptable.

    Originally Freud’s view of narcissism was based on his concept of sexual libido wherein this psychic narcissistic energy was directed for sexual manifestations. This theory was later modified by Freud and was empathesized by Jung as an energy that binds the needs of the individual both internally and externally to fit the needs for survival. Highly charged energies create forces that motivate behavior for that organisms’ survival.

    The comprehension of human behavior depends upon an understanding of these narcissistically energized forces.


    Primary narcissism is the label given to this force accompanying the new born; wherein the only reality is the self, its body and its accompanying sensations associated with a need for sleep, bodily contact, warmth, thirst, and hunger.

    Moral hypochondria is little different from physical hypochondria manifestations. “The narcissism underlying physical or moral hypochondriasis is the same as the narcissism of the vain person, except that it is less apparent, as such, to the untrained eye.” K. Abraham calls this negative narcissism and it is characterized by feelings of inadequacy, unreality, and self-accusation.

    How do we recognize the individual with abnormal levels of narcissism? S/he shows all the signs of self-satisfaction, generally oblivious of others, very sensitive to criticism, little genuine interest in the outside world, and all of these characteristics are often hidden behind an attitude of modesty and humility.

    Another important characteristic of some individuals is the association of certain aspects of their person that become objects of focused narcissism. They become very sensitive to any disagreement with their ideas, their honor, their house, their car, intelligence, or physical prowess. S/he will often seem to have fallen in love with all of their stuff.


    “Speaking teleologically, we can say that nature had to endow man with a great amount of narcissism to enable him to do what is necessary for survival. This is true especially because nature has not endowed man with well-developed instincts such as the animal has…In man the instinctive apparatus has lost most of its efficacy—hence narcissism assumes a very necessary biological function…Narcissism is a passion the intensity of which in many individuals can only be compared with sexual drive and the desire to stay alive.”

    Narcissism has an important function to perform—it is important for our survival. However, there is a serious down side. Extreme narcissism makes us indifferent to others and incapable of giving our personal needs second place to the needs of the community. Extreme narcissism is the opposite of empathy; it makes us asocial creatures unable to cooperate for the common good.

    Another dangerous result of narcissism is that it distorts our ability to reason and to make good judgments. “Narcissistic value-judgment is prejudiced and biased. Usually this prejudice is rationalized in one form or another and the rationalization may be more or less deceptive according to the intelligence and sophistication of the person involved…If he were aware of the distorted nature of his narcissistic judgments, the results would not be so bad. He would—and could—take a humorous attitude toward his narcissistic bias. But this is rare.”

    The narcissistic person reacts with great anger when criticized. S/he tends to take all criticism as a personal attack; this can be understood when we recognize that the extremely narcissistic person is unrelated to the world; s/he feels alone and frightened and these feelings lead to compensation by self-inflation. “When his narcissism is wounded he feels threatened in his whole existence…This fury is all the more intense because nothing can be done to diminish the threat by appropriate action; only destruction of the critic—or oneself—can save one from the threat to one’s narcissistic security.”

    Depression is a means other than rage for struggling against a wounded narcissism. The narcissistic person uses the shield of self-inflation, acquiring a feeling of omniscient and omnipotent, to overcome the arrows of the outside world. The narcissistic person dreads the feeling associated with depression and one way to combat this alternative is to attempt to change reality in such a way as to conform to his self created image. This is done by associating with others in a dynamic of group narcissism.

    This post is getting too long; I will close by saying that group narcissism represents the most dramatic phenomenon that leads to human destructiveness.

    Ideas and quotes for narcissism come from The Heart of Man Erich Fromm

    The question I ask of the reader is ‘what label or labels are missing to identify those problems that are neither a puzzle nor a paradox?’

  7. #7
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Posts
    336

    Default

    A person can walk the corridors of any big city hospital and observe the effectiveness of human rationality in action. One can also visit the UN building in NYC or read the morning papers and observe just how ineffective, frustrating and disappointing human rationality can be. Why does human reason perform so well in some matters and so poorly in others?

    We live in two very different worlds; a world of technical and technological order and clarity, and a world of personal and social disorder and confusion. We are increasingly able to solve problems in one domain and increasingly endangered by our inability to solve problems in the other.

    Normal science is successful primarily because it is a domain of knowledge controlled by paradigms. The paradigm defines the standards, principles and methods of the discipline. It is not apparent to the laity but science moves forward in small incremental steps. Science seldom seeks and almost never produces major novelties.

    Science solves puzzles. The logic of the paradigm insulates the professional group from problems that are unsolvable by that paradigm. One reason that science progresses so rapidly and with such assurance is because the logic of that paradigm allows the practitioners to work on problems that only their lack of ingenuity will keep them from solving.

    Science uses instrumental rationality to solve puzzles. Instrumental rationality is a systematic process for reflecting upon the best action to take to reach an established end. The obvious question becomes ‘what mode of rationality is available for determining ends?’ Instrumental rationality appears to be of little use in determining such matters as “good” and “right”.

    There is a striking difference between the logic of technical problems and that of dialectical problems. The principles, methods and standards for dealing with technical problems and problems of “real life” are as different as night and day. Real life problems cannot be solved only using deductive and inductive reasoning.

    Dialectical reasoning methods require the ability to slip quickly between contradictory lines of reasoning. One needs skill to develop a synthesis of one point of view with another. Where technical matters are generally confined to only one well understood frame of reference real life problems become multi-dimensional totalities.

    When we think dialectically we are guided by principles not by procedures. Real life problems span multiple categories and academic disciplines. We need point-counter-point argumentation; we need emancipatory reasoning to resolve dialectical problems. We need critical thinking skills and attitudes to resolve real life problems.

Similar Threads

  1. What personality types does popular culture encourage most?
    By FinalFrontier89 in forum Myers-Briggs and Jungian Cognitive Functions
    Replies: 54
    Last Post: 10-10-2015, 04:05 PM
  2. What does it mean to be "open minded"?
    By Grayscale in forum General Psychology
    Replies: 35
    Last Post: 01-24-2012, 11:51 PM
  3. Narrow Minds?
    By PoprocksAndCoke in forum Philosophy and Spirituality
    Replies: 41
    Last Post: 11-27-2009, 01:57 AM
  4. Natural Science: Hegemony of the Right Angle Paradigm?
    By coberst in forum Philosophy and Spirituality
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 05-21-2009, 01:33 PM
  5. Why does modern science scares you?
    By Virtual ghost in forum Science, Technology, and Future Tech
    Replies: 29
    Last Post: 10-03-2008, 07:34 PM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
Single Sign On provided by vBSSO