Gadianton wrote:LoP,
You're not reading what I write, especially the quoted material from SEP and Godfrey-Smith which makes the case for me concerning the "micro" and the "macro", I'll return to that briefly at the end here, or in another post.There is, quite simply, no reason to think paradigm shifts only apply to "scientific data." I just finished a short introduction to literary theory by oxford u press and a great deal of it dealt with, you guessed it, paradigms. It didn't mention them by name but the concept was remarkably clear.
LoP, congratulations on discovering literary theory. If you keep going down this route, you'll understand why at one point, Kuhn came close to sounding like he regreted even writing his book, e.g., the vast applications of "paradigms" to a growing anti-science academic culture which had been largely spearheaded by literary theorists. Clearly, I don't think Kuhn can copyright the word or concept of a "paradigm", but it is wrong to take a later adaption of the word "paradigm" or even worse, a similar concept under a different name, and then attribute it to Kuhn as if he's the one who argued for it and he's the authority by which one rightly appeals to.
I imagine we are closer to understanding one another than is apparent in the thread. I am aware of some important limitations of Kuhn's views. I read a few chapters in Godfrey-Smith's Theory and Reality in regards to Kuhn and found it interesting. One of his criticisms of Kuhn was that he seemed to be too precise in his diagnosis; that "single paradigms rarely have the kind of dominance Kuhn describes" for example. I agree, and think Kuhn was basically shooting for the largest and easiest targets in the examples he employed. Lacking proper nuance, I got the impression that Kuhn had room to give, so to speak, and that he would give that room if pressed, especially with actual historical examples. Interestingly, some of the criticisms by Smith fit comfortably with the way I've seen people like Christensen interpret Kuhn as well. In this instance, then, Kuhn is not seen as a pure "oracle," if you will, but as an exemplar, though infallible, whose paradigm concept transfers quite well across borders. Especially fruitful in that regard was Kuhn's postscript explanation of why two people can speak honestly, accurately, and right past each other. This is where Christensen makes his comparison between Vogel, Metcalfe interpretation and that of people like John Sorensen. All have important things to say with reasons they say them, but it can be difficult for them to talk to each other without falling back into mere polemics. Kuhn's idea of "translating" was fascinating in that regard.
So there are cogent responses to Kuhn, but again, I have not seen so-called "apologists" apply Kuhn so rigidly as to render them impotent. Most notably, again, was Christensen's paradigms papers.
I will say this: Kuhn's views ought to be studied as they are as well, so as not to impute improper views to him. It is possible to go only so far with someone, but it is responsible to make sure the impression is not given that you are going all the way with them, either! So thanks for encouraging me to revisit Kuhn, it has proved most interesting and I think helpful as well.