What Is a Paradigm?

The concept and theory of paradigm was proposed by Thomas Kuhn, a famous American philosopher of science, and expounded systematically in The Structure of Scientific Revolutions (1970).

[fàn shì]

Carry out scientific research, establish a scientific system, use the coordinates, frame of reference, and basic methods of scientific thought, and the basic model, structure, and functions of the scientific system. ^[1-4]

The characteristics of the paradigm are:

(1) Paradigms are recognized to a certain extent;

(2) The paradigm is a whole composed of basic laws, theories, applications, and related instruments and equipment. Its existence provides a research program for scientists;

(3) The paradigm also provides a precedent that can be imitated for scientific research. It can be seen that in Kuhn's paradigm theory, the paradigm is ultimately a theoretical system, and the breakthrough of the paradigm leads to

Kuhn, an American historian of science, has lauded the world for his representative work, The Structure of the Scientific Revolution (1962) (hereinafter referred to as "Structure"), although people have two very different views on it: one view is that it is "the history of wisdom "A milestone in science", "the most important excavation in the field of science in half a century"; another view is that it is "completely unbelievable" and "dazzling mistake".

In Kuhn's view, the essence of the "scientific revolution" is, in a word, "paradigm shift"; it is the "exception" that a small number of people find in existing widely accepted scientific paradigms that cannot be solved by existing theories, and try Competitive theories replaced it, thus ruling out the original paradigm of "incommensurability". Of course, the establishment of a new paradigm does not happen overnight, but needs to win the "votes" of most scientists.

Kuhn's paradigm theory generally comes from thinking triggered by examples from the history of science . More than 2,000 years ago, Aristotle believed that "the speed at which an object falls freely is proportional to its weight". Therefore, "the heavier the object, the faster it will fall." This observation seems close to the fact of daily life: unless in a vacuum, a paper and a book land at different speeds. But if you put them together, do you fall faster or slower? Galileo climbed up to the Leaning Tower of Pisa and used a pair of wooden balls and shots of the same size to experimentally prove that they landed at the same time. Why have people inherited this misunderstanding for two thousand years?

While Popper and his opponents were enthusiastically discussing the "negativity" of science, Kuhn believed that the correctness of a theory could not be "corrected" or "verified", but it was only Is there. It's like a suit that fits until you find it out of fit. After experiencing a "question answer" for a period of time, a theory will encounter more and more "weird questions". From inability to answer to the emergence of a crisis, new theories will be stimulated, and old theories are thrown away like unsuitable clothes. This is how the "Leaning Tower Experiment" led people to abandon the outdated Aristotle's theory.

"Anormly" is extremely helpful for understanding scientific progress, because they point out the shortcomings of the original model and stimulate the generation of new theories. As everyone knows, British physicist Thomson declared in 1900 that there were only two "clouds" left in the sky of physics. However, it was these two "clouds" that led to the birth of relativity and quantum theory in the twentieth century. Darwin was quoted in the Oxford Dictionary of English in 1873: "In nature, there is no greater exception than a non-flying bird." It can be seen that the fact of an exception is usually not expected by the existing conceptual framework, Difficult to interpret and logically incompatible. Kuhn wrote in "Structure": "Discovery stems from awareness of exceptions, that is to say, from knowledge of the nature of pilot expectations that are somewhat out of normal scientific control (pp. 52-53)." Scientific discoveries serve as A complex process drives paradigm shifts, and the "exceptions" in the old paradigm are no longer the exception in the new paradigm. In Kuhn's words, "normal science" is a series of patterns and assumptions shared by the scientific community. It usually operates under a strict logical framework. Without a bold spirit of exploration, these frameworks cannot be broken. The scientists in the "normal state" are far from objective. They have reasons to stick to the "orthodox" theory and tend to find the answer to the problem in the existing structure. For example, the Greek astronomer Aristarchus in the third century AD proposed the theory of the planets orbiting the sun. But the scientific community at the time was based on Ptolemy's geocentric doctrine and was not ready to accept this leap in knowledge.

Kuhn's critics argue that he sought to describe science as nothing more than a group of "black lines" of rules. Kuhn said: "This is unreasonable, and I want to be prepared to argue for it." If "normal science" is a slow, continuous, stable, and cumulative change, then "science revolution" or "paradigm shift" It is a very rare but significant change. After confirming the existence of the paradigm, science has no immortal paradigm. "Infant science" is often explored from a small number of people, such as Galileo, Newton, Darwin, Einstein and so on. Kuhn believes that the history of science is driven by insightful new ideas, not the effects of continuous accumulation. "Normal science" is only "exquisite" after the establishment of the scientific initiative.

Kuhn's paradigm theory is also part of what is often used to criticize Hogan's End of Science. They believe that the exploration of science is endless. The so-called "end of science" that Hogan sees is only part of the "normal science" described by Kuhn. Paradigm shifts are even unexpected and "planned." Therefore, to prove Hogan is fundamentally wrong, we need to wait for a new scientific breakthrough and the paradigm shift caused by it.

In the infinite bickering of science and theology, Kuhn's discovery seems to be more conducive to theology, but it is actually an illusion. The rational thinking of the philosophy of science has repeatedly warned people that science is a hypothesis in a certain period of time, and the authority of the natural sciences should not be used to measure humanistic values. Theology was once a "reliable" source of knowledge for medieval Europeans, and the birth of modern science has largely replaced the place of theology.

In English, Kuhn gave the word "paradigm" originally meant "grammatical mode" to "modern meaning". However, its ambiguous nature allows it to be applied to almost any field of tradition and innovation. No one understands it. For example, industrialists believe that technological innovation, from steam engines to computers, can cause changes in the industrial structure (paradigm); economists use tax policies to promote the rationalization of corporate structure (paradigm); a series of issues such as management have also emerged in management Organizational paradigm, open paradigm, synchronous paradigm, synergy paradigm, reference paradigm, and random paradigm, among other new terms; sociologists take it as a treasure to describe the changes in the so-called "social paradigm"; the Bush administration in 1989 A less successful new paradigm movement has been implemented, such as ensuring education, strengthening markets, helping the poor, and decentralizing the administration. No wonder some people complain that Kuhn's "new ideas" are beyond recognition and become "cliches." Critics have found 22 inaccurate uses of the "paradigm" in his classic "Structure" book, and Kuhn acknowledged that his use of the term "paradigm" was "flexible."

The Kuhn paradigm doctrine seems to coincide with the traditional Chinese overall thinking, and it is easy to resonate with the Chinese. For example, economists use it as the theoretical basis for the "transition mode of reform goals"; entrepreneurs can reconstruct the internal structure and transformation mechanism of enterprises based on it; historians use it to explain changes in dynasties, such as "super-stable systems", which have " "The question is old, the method is new", or to discuss the "Joseph Needham Problem": Why did modern science not arise in China? Some say "the acceleration of the science and technology cycle"; or answer why capitalism was born in the UK, "potential structure", and so on, and generally start from a "new angle" of the structure.

The author gives so many examples of paradigm external use, not to give the reader a "how effective" misunderstanding. Conversely, paradigm analysis has limitations as a method. Some applications, either applied or abused, are not only hollow and superficial, but also lack rigorous structural definition, critical condition analysis without conversion, and so on. Paradigm shifts are not likely to be that frequent, and the paradigm shifts for imagination are nothing more than the "romantic fantasy" of unrequited love. It is the same in any field. Without a breakthrough in thinking and a technological update, the so-called "paradigm shift" is meaningless. "Exceptions" lead to the crisis of existing frameworks, and new ideas that emerge as the times require often lead to paradigm shifts, rather than groaning upside down.

Ironically, Kuhn did not fully convince historians that natural science can be clearly divided into "normal" and "revolutionary" alternating phases, while philosophers and sociologists seem to be very keen on Kuhn's theory. interest. We should realize that Kuhn's discussion is different from his flatterers. For example, Western "postmodernists" regard him as an anti-scientist "ally" and unilaterally "developed" his theory. Their research scope usually includes philosophy, psychology, epistemology, sociology, culture, feminism and art, etc. Since the profound reflections on science by philosophers such as Popper, Kuhn, and Feyerabend, in the past two or three decades, a reversal tendency of the "postmodernists" has been the lack of rational exploration of truth. Their common credo is to claim that "all knowledge is determined by culture" and slipped into a strong anti-science bias.

Kuhn was born in Cincinnati in 1922. This beautiful little city is my first stop in the United States to live. Kuhn received his Ph.D. in physics from Harvard University, taught at several universities, and stopped at MIT. His research interest shifted from physics to the history of science. Kuhn died in Massachusetts in June 1996. US Vice President Gore commented: "To be more precise, he reveals how a theory that has been established collapses under the pressure of new facts and unexplained observations." This generalization, in its essence, is In terms of contribution, it is considered fair. (In the United States on June 12, 1999)