Talk:Paradigm Information & Talk:Paradigm Links at HealthHaven.com

WikiProject History of Science

	v • d • e This article is part of the History of Science WikiProject, an attempt to improve and organize the history of science content on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion. You can also help with the History of Science Collaboration of the Month.
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's quality scale.
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

WikiProject Sociology

(Rated Start-Class, High-importance)

Sociology portal

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Sociology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Sociology on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.

Start

This article has been rated as Start-Class on the project's quality scale.

High

This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

WikiProject Philosophy

(Rated Start-Class, High-importance)

Philosophy portal

This article is within the scope of the WikiProject Philosophy, which collaborates on articles related to philosophy. To participate, you can edit this article or visit the project page for more details.

Start

This article has been rated as Start-Class on the project's quality scale.

High

This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

Further information and related task forces:

	Aesthetics
	Epistemology
	Logic
	Philosophy of science

The last paragraph of the current article criticizes in POV fashion the use and/or abuse of this term. The criticism is silly in the respect that words, obviously, do not have immutable meanings: words are tools to express whatever an individual or community want them to communicate. On the other hand, using a word in a sense that is unknown to an intended audience, indeterminate, meaningless or misrepresentative is not helpful. If wiki is to have any diatribe on use/abuse of a word, then the first word on the list should be metaphysical. IMO, that word has been the greatest source of error, misunderstanding and nonsense in the history of the world. Besides all that, there is at least a third use of the word that is common (perhaps the most common) and meaningful which is used in the sense of Weltanschauung. My article edit that follows reflects what I've stated here. --B 16:48, 22 Oct 2003 (UTC)

Isn't there also a second use in linguistics, a "paradigm sentence", meaning an example to be used by analogy in correctly forming sentences? -- Jmabel 22:59, 30 Jan 2004 (UTC)

Paradigm? To me, that's 20 cents. --User:Juuitchan

Ouch. --128.100.36.228 15:32, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

1 "The Human Paradigm"
2 deigma
3 Gebser's new consciousness
4 Cybernetics
5 Paradigm as "Weltanschauung"
6 Dubious reference
7 Need to change subtitle
8 Cut from article
9 Newtonian Dynamics
10 Kuhn's meaning?
11 Analogy
12 Paradigm vs examplar: final showdown
13 Revert problems
14 Kuhn's New Terms for 'paradigm'
15 what does taht mean???

[edit] "The Human Paradigm"

(Lengthy and not apparently relevant Christian tract that was anonymously pasted here moved to Talk:Paradigm/Tract. -- Jmabel 17:32, Oct 8, 2004 (UTC)

[edit] deigma

What's a deigma? lysdexia 18:48, 25 Oct 2004 (UTC)

I assume you mean in Greek? I don't think all on its own "deigma" means anything, but I could be mistaken. You might ask one of the people listed at Wikipedia:Translators_available#Greek-to-English. -- Jmabel | Talk 20:33, Oct 25, 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Gebser's new consciousness

I think it would be relevant to insert a paragraph or so about Jean Gebser's theories on change in consciousness. — FJ | hello 08:16, May 10, 2005 (UTC)

Go for it. -- Jmabel | Talk 17:33, May 10, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Cybernetics

Is there any citation for the claimed use of this term in cybernetics? -- Jmabel | Talk 05:12, Jun 8, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Paradigm as "Weltanschauung"

On the whole I agree with this, although I think the wording is unnecessarily abstruse and, in places, obscure ("and/or/nor"?). Is your dissertation, or some variant on it, headed for peer reviewed publication? If not, this may be a bit perilously close to the kind of original research usually disparaged in Wikipedia, although I think it probably should be within the pale. Do you think you could reword what you wrote here in a style more appropriate to the general reader? If so, it's probably worth incorporating into the article. -- Jmabel | Talk 23:45, Jun 20, 2005 (UTC)

I tried to clarify the text. Please suggest where there are still some unclear parts. -- LandoSr | Talk --LandoSr 14:38, 21 July 2005 (UTC)

Added the download link of the Primary Source -- LandoSr | Talk 10:02, Aug 23, 2005 (CET)

Added the direct link to the ETD Database. The description on the Website is a MS-IIS oriented website which does not support FireFox and Opera -- LandoSr | Talk LandoSr 12:11, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

I would like to echo the concerns about OR here, and also note a lack of balance--there is simply too much exploration of a one relatively minor and specific viewpoint. One dissertation should not dominate an article. 02:18, 31 August 2007 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rodii (talk • contribs)

Withdrawn by author due to doubt by others. --LandoSr (talk) 12:14, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Dubious reference

The following "reference" was recently added to the article, without comment, by an anonymous contributor who does not appear to have made any other contributions to the article:

Clarke, Thomas and Clegg, Stewart (eds) (2000) "Changing Paradigms" London: HarperCollins ISBN 0006387314

This is a business book. I seriously doubt that it was used as a reference in the article. If no one responds in the next week or so to say what in the article is referenced from this source, I would like to remove it. -- 02:33, August 31, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Need to change subtitle

The subtitle "Examples" is both vague and misleading vis-a-vis the material in that section. This should be changed to something more appropriate. soverman 03:19 12 OCT 2005 (UTC)

Done, changed it to "Paradigm shifts". -- Jmabel | Talk 05:40, 14 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Cut from article

It is also used in Medicine to name an action or "method of treatment" that would seem completely against to any rule or previous tought...and in principle appears even harmful...!! The best example would be when a patient comes to the ER with epistaxis (bleeding Nose) and you ask them to "blow their noses !!"...(this manouver is actually curative because dislodges the clot that keeps the nose bleeding ).J.Lentino MD ,FACS , COL ret US ARMY.

Oddly written, oddly cited, and I doubt it. -- Jmabel | Talk 05:55, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Newtonian Dynamics

From article: " (Newtonian mechanics is an excellent approximation for speeds that are slow compared to the speed of light)."

Is this a safe statement? Isn't this presuming that the MOND vs Dark Matter debate has resolved to the MOND side?

Excuse my ignorance if I'm missing the point. I haven't made any changes to the article, as I may well be just misreading or misunderstanding the point. --Leigh (24 Feb 2006)

[edit] Kuhn's meaning?

Kuhn's meaning was and is widely abused.- That's a little subjective, I took it out. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 166.82.11.64 (talk • contribs) 14 July 2006.

Agreed. Though I think it is the generally held opinion, and it would be good to get some citations in here describing how the term is abused. - Jmabel | Talk 00:19, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Analogy

Does the paragraph that begins "Simple common analogy" really belong here? It's more or less accurate, but it's not at all our usual writing style. - Jmabel | Talk 06:07, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Paradigm vs examplar: final showdown

Although the article does make the important point that the original and the popular meanings of 'paradigm' differ, I think its unclear what the difference is. Was Kuhn's original use of 'paradigm' approximately identical to his use of 'exemplars'? With later popular usage of 'paradigm' shifting its focus towards the scientific theories in which those exemplars was rooted? In my opinion, the 'Scientific paradigm' section ought to begin with a clear explanation of Kuhn's original meaning and end with a short explanation of its current popular meaning, so the difference cannot be misunderstood. --AndersFeder 17:25, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Revert problems

Howdy, I'd just like to bring it to the attention of this talk page that User:24.167.133.55 has been repeatedly adding material that is not encyclopedic, and does not conform to WP:NPOV, or Wikipedia:No original research. I'm pretty sure if this persists, I will run up against the WP:3RR rule, and need some help here. --Haemo

Okay, I've just hit my 3rd revert on this page, and per WP:3RR I'll have to stop. I'm adding a comment4 template to her page, and if it happens again I'm going to be reporting her for vandalism. --Haemo 01:14, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Kuhn's New Terms for 'paradigm'

The wiki article cites this currently: "Kuhn himself came to prefer the terms exemplar and normal science, which have more exact philosophical meanings."

However, as he states in his article in 1977 entitled "Second Thoughts on Paradigms," he reconstitutes paradigm as "exemplar" and "disciplinary matrix".

"normal science" is actually a way to conduct science, (its opposite being "revolutionary science") and it is not a direct parallel to paradigm, but rather, the nature of science within a given paradigm, which are two very different things.

Tybeet 16:55, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

I have had to challenge the definition of "incommensurable" as it was presented when I read the article, along with the claim that incommensurable paradigms cannot be compared. This latter statement is absurd, of course, since we can, for example, meaningfully compare the Ptolemaic and Copernican models or paradigms. What we cannot always do, however, is fully comprehend one of the competing paradigms within the language and overall perspective afforded by the competing paradigm. I am not sure that I have adequately addressed this issue, but the former way that it was stated was clearly incorrect and in need of revision, since it implied a false claim, i.e., that competing paradigms simply could not be compared, and this is patently false. I ask other serious scholars in the philosophy of science to review the edits that I have made. Landrumkelly (talk) 14:16, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

I don't see any reference to New Gingrich's use of a "New Paradigm." My understanding of Paradigm is "cluster of beliefs" that guide behavior close to the "world view" cited herein. Larry, 2/15/09 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.187.227.249 (talk) 14:54, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

[edit] what does taht mean???

"...competing paradigms are not fully intelligible solely within the context of their own conceptual frameworks."

what does competing paradigms mean? the paradigm that are going to be compared? how come a paradigm can not be fully understanded within its own context. If it can't be understanded then it wouldn't call itself paradigm...

"...the real barrier to comparison is not necessarily the absence of common units of measure, but an absence of mutually compatible or mutually intelligible concepts."

I think this is a logical mistake

if two thing does not have mutually compatible/intelligible concepts, it already mean they don't have common units to be measured...

"A new paradigm which replaces an old paradigm is not necessarily better, because the criteria of judgment depend on the paradigm—and on the conceptual framework which defines it and gives it its explanatory value."

How come to define if a new pardigm is better than the old one is depend on itself? It just like I ask people "Am I handsome?" "they said: It depend on are you handsome@@"

Secondly, a paradigm define a conceptual framework or a conceptual framework define a paradigm????

Contents