DiscussMormonism.com

To answer Harmony, who asked about David Bokovoy's use of the word "paradigm" and to avoid derailing the thread, I started this one. I have no idea if David had Kuhn in mind when he wrote what he did. One of several points I've tried to make is that many apologists talk about "paradigms" and paradigms "shifting" in fast and loose ways that have nothing to do with Kuhn's philosophy of science. Some may think they are making serious points grounded in one, Thomas Kuhn, the terrifying enemy of the positivists, others may never have heard of him. But this kind of speaking about paradigms is common in business, self help books, motivational speaking, and so on.

Bokovoy wrote:Rather than abandoning the Church of Jesus Christ, I believe that every issue that ever troubles our members may simply require a paradigm shift...Of course many other illustrations of paradigm shifts could be provided. I have had to employ a variety of such shifts when faced with new evidence that contradicted my assumptions

Jeff Lindsey wrote:Dealing with the scriptures often requires paradigm shifts. Many people used to read the Creation story as an exact account of the seven 24-hour days that were used to create the earth. Scientific discovery has challenged the assumptions behind that belief. A careful look at the text shows that the Hebrew word for "day" can also refer to a long period of time, similar to "era" or "age." A shift in our paradigm...

(my saved link to Wade Englund no longer works, his paradigm discussions are truly classic)

Godfrey-Smith illustrates this common use of the word "paradigm" by quoting from Tom Wolfe's hilarious satirical novel, A Man in Full,

Wolfe wrote:"I'm afraid that's a sunk cost, Charlie," said Wismer Stroock. "At this point the whole paradigm has shifted."

Charlie started to remonstrate. Most of the Wiz's lingo he could put up with, even a "sunk cost." But his word "paradigm" absolutely drove him up the wall, so much so that he had complained to the Wiz about it. The damned word meant nothing at all, near as he could make out, and yet it was always "shifting," whatever it was. In fact, that was the only thing the "paradigm" ever seemed to do. It only shifted.

So imagine how my gut just splits every time I see an apologist bullshitting about their paradigm shifting. Sometimes it's too much.

There are apologists like Kevin christensen who try and formulate careful arguments based on Kuhn, that's for another time.

Sometimes "paradigm shift" looks like the driver who claims that he was peacfully driving along at the speed limit, when a telegraph pole jumped into the street and hit him.

What I find interesting is how reluctant LDS are to do the one paradigm shift that will allow them to see Mormonism for what it is. They cannot shift their absolute belief that the church is true. It wasn't until I actually shifted paradigms into a world where it might be possible that the church is false that I realized it was.

Scottie wrote:What I find interesting is how reluctant LDS are to do the one paradigm shift that will allow them to see Mormonism for what it is. They cannot shift their absolute belief that the church is true. It wasn't until I actually shifted paradigms into a world where it might be possible that the church is false that I realized it was.

Oh how very true that is. This is exactly what I went through as well. I've described it many times. There was a tipping point where I made the conscious decision not to view all of the evidence under the unshakeable assumption that the church was true, and instead to view it to see where it lead instead. From that one instant, where that decision was made, my testimony didn't stand a chance.

I wouldn't say I switched immediately from believer to non-believer - on the contrary, I actually defended Joseph Smith using familiar apologetic approaches to an apostate brother-in-law who was telling me things he'd read on the web about Joseph Smith after I'd already crossed that tipping point. That was just my testimony fighting a delaying action during the long retreat that actually took a few months to really take me from believer to apostate. But from that tipping point moment my apostasy was inevitable, because when exposed to the harsh truth of reality, unshielded by an unshakeable will bent on preserving my faith in the church, my testimony was unavoidably doomed, because the church isn't actually true, and really cannot stand up to unfettered scrutiny.

As I've said before, the church is not only not true, it's obviously not true. The reason this isn't obvious to the TBMs is, I think, at the crux of a very large part of the problem with God belief and religion in general (because it's essentially the same reason that would apply to pretty much all other believers in all the other religions).

Oh how very true that is.

But at the same time, it's not true. Because Scottie's personal way of looking at things has nothing to do with a "paradigm" or a "paradigm shift" as discussed by Kuhn.

Here are some more quotes from Godfrey-Smith:

Kuhn held that, in general, a single paradigm will dominate its field. He did not think that two or three separate and competing paradigms could normally coexist.

- p. 84

A paradigm is,

...a whole way of doing science, in some particular field.

Kuhn's theory is the principle one paradigm per field per time.

I don't think Scottie's way of looking at the church can be considered a "whole way of doing science, in some particular field".

An analogy might be, Scottie is a language speaker, and a "paradigm" is to a scientist as language is to Scottie. Scientists don't "have paradigms" and consequently can't "shift" their paradigms.

Thanks for starting the thread, Gad. I'm about through with Structure. Is there a paper by the Smith fellow you recommend? I'm also going to revisit Barbour's use and Christensen's use before getting more in depth with you at exploring how Kuhn is being used as a launchpad or a way to understand (not as proof of Mormonism).

LoP,

If you do a google seach:

"a man in full" kuhn

Then click on the first link.

An excellent contribution to the literature. You know, Dr. Robbers, this discussion reminds me of my attempts to ask DCP and LoaP why they engaged in apologetics. At the most, we get very bland and vague answers such as, "To open up a place for faith to exist." The reality is that, per the Bokovian mis-reading of Kuhn, apologists understand that if they have no real, grounded position, they can attack at will. The Mopologetic position is not actually about *defending* anything, per se (which principles do apologists actually defend? which actual doctrines?), rather it is about maintaining a perfect paradigm flux so that these bellicose ex-missionaries can continue to get their jollies bashing with critics.

Mister Scratch wrote:An excellent contribution to the literature. You know, Dr. Robbers, this discussion reminds me of my attempts to ask DCP and LoaP why they engaged in apologetics. At the most, we get very bland and vague answers such as, "To open up a place for faith to exist." The reality is that, per the Bokovian mis-reading of Kuhn, apologists understand that if they have no real, grounded position, they can attack at will. The Mopologetic position is not actually about *defending* anything, per se (which principles do apologists actually defend? which actual doctrines?), rather it is about maintaining a perfect paradigm flux so that these bellicose ex-missionaries can continue to get their jollies bashing with critics.

Hmmmm. That is what I was thinking yesterday when LOAP ran off from the first vision thread. Thanks for expressing that much better than I ever could have.

What is he doing here?

gramps wrote:Hmmmm. That is what I was thinking yesterday when LOAP ran off from the first vision thread. Thanks for expressing that much better than I ever could have.

What is he doing here?

Studying? Improving? Growing? Please don't discourage him.