ForumGarden

Normal science is a puzzle

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 philosophical 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 human achievement), 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 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 problems of society?

Yes of course you can, we do it all the time. The British National Health service for example was the result of a rational solution to a problem in that the general health care recieved by British people was appalling if they coudn't pay a lot of money for it, (and despite its many and continuing problems) institutional, scientific health care provides people with a better level of medical care than say, praying, or consulting the entrails of a chicken.

The premise of the argument is that basically there is something mystical about human behaviour and you can't use rationalism to try to deal with human problems. Thats metaphysics, and to me, tautological nonsense. What is true is that you can't treat human beings, or socities like collections of hydrogen atoms, as they are a bit more complicated than that, and so your ability to predict precisely how people react or behave in detail is very low, but it doesn't mean you can make phenomological or anthropological assumptions in general.

Things go wrong when people try to use simplistic technial answers to deep human issues, (Russian communism is a good example). But that simply means that you have to use more sophsitcated solutions, not give up on being rational in the first place. You don't use optics to solve political problems, no more than you would use anthropogy to determine the speed of light. A first year science student would understand that, though maybe a student with PHd in philosophy would find a way of not understanding that.

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 using deductive and inductive reasoning.

Dialectical reasoning requires 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.

How to build the atomic bomb is a technical problem. Whether to build the bomb or what to do with it after it is built is a real life problem.

The critically self-conscious learner is a person who has developed a passion for rational solutions to problematic ends. Instrumental rationality is designed to solve problems of means when the end is clear. Normal science, the science of means, is guided and controlled by paradigms. Paradigms are single dimensional structures that insure that means solutions do not stray from the straight and narrow.

Such systems are designed for puzzle solutions that are perfectly acceptable for single dimensional problems. The problematic situation that presents itself is just how to approach the determination of ends when such matters are mostly multi-dimensional without paradigms and generally demanding the agreement of two or more reflective agents. There are no paradigms for multi-dimensional problems.



Instrumental rationality is not a method suitable for developing ends. Dialectical rationality is the only mode of reasoning suitable for arriving at satisfactory ends.

In a criminal jury trial each juror ideally begins hearing the case as a mental blank slate. The witnesses engage in a controlled and guided dialogue wherein each witness communicates to the jury their particular truth regarding the matter under consideration. Each juror modifies his or her blank slate as the witness’s parade through; each providing his or her view of the truth. A dialogue takes place for the benefit of the juror who is not a member of the dialogue.

Each juror is required to reason dialectically. Dialectical reasoning is a process wherein the opinion of the juror is molded and remolded based upon the truths presented. The blank slate becomes slate A after witness A and then becomes slate A-B after witness B and then becomes slate A-B-C, etc.

At the end of the trial the jurors assemble in isolation to determine a verdict. Generally the members are polled to determine if all agree upon the truth of the case. If one or more jurors dissent from the others a new dialogue must take place. The jurors begin a dialogue in an attempt to reach a unanimous decision.

In this stage each juror is engaged in communication in dialogue while simultaneously each juror is engaged in a rational dialectic.

A jury trial might be a useful example of a problem engaged by many reflective agents with a multiplicity of frames of reference. In such a situation the jury must utilize communicative techniques to enter into a dialogue wherein there is a constant dialectic until a unanimous solution is reached or deadlock prevails.

Communicating by dialogue together with reasoning dialectically is a technique for attempting to solve multi-dimensional problems. Problems that are either not pattern like or that the pattern is too complex to ascertain.

Most problems that we face in our daily life are multi-dimensional in nature. Simple problems that occur daily in family life are examples. Each member of the family has a different point of view with differing needs and desires. Most of the problems we constantly face are not readily solved by mathematics because they are not pattern specific and are multi-dimensional.

Dialogue is a technique for mutual consideration of such problems wherein solutions grow in a dialectical manner. Through dialogue each individual brings his/her point of view to the fore by proposing solutions constructed around their specific view. All participants in the dialogue come at the solution from the logic of their views. The solution builds dialectically; from a thesis and a contrasting thesis, a synthesis is constructed that takes into consideration both proposals. From this synthesis, a new thesis has developed.

When we are dealing with single dimensional problems well circumscribed by paradigms the personal biases of the subject are of small concern. In multi-dimensional problems, without the advantage of paradigms, the biases of the problem solvers become a serious source of error. One important task of dialogue is to illuminate these prejudices. These biases may be quite subtle and often out of the consciousness of the participant holding them.

Dialogic, the combination of dialogue and dialectic, is the only form of rationalization available for multilogical problems. Induction and deduction are aspects of the act of dialogic but are not sufficient alone for this needed communication form of rationalization.

Our schools have decided that our children should learn to be critical thinkers. I agree with their judgment. This disciplined form of thought is important to each child and is vitally important to our society. I have attempted to relay to you my sense of the importance of critical thinking in the hope that you may share that judgment and lend your support to the school system in this vital matter.

[QUOTE=coberst]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.

Yes there is a difference. In a hospital you have a large group of people all engaged in basically achieving the same end, despite their own indivdual quirks and personality clashes. In the U.N. you have about 180 countries each with different agendas, cultures, perspectives, social mores, etc, so you get huge discord mostly with the odd agreement on something pressing, but its not irrational, its just the because there are 6 billion people, there are lots of different agendas, and conflict in inevitable. Unfotunatly sometimes people do become irrational though. Human reason works well in things like science and technology because most people share a common agenda whatever the differences and their is an agreed structure of how problems are to be tackled, in other fields of life their is no common agenda and you have the psychology of struggle and competition, its not pretty but its based on a very rational principal, that of self-interest over either the long or short term.

I content that we don't live in 2 worlds, we actually live in many, there are many world views and modes of thought. Scientific determinism and philospohical and critical didactism are others, but they are only 2 of many. One of the great strengths of science is that its ultimatly based on the evidence of physical reality, which is a good lowest common denominator when people are trying to achieve a paradigm within which they can share knowledge, insights, and ideas.

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.

Again I don't agree, I think people's morality can be explained by anthropology and biology. We are unique animals in that we have the aspects of both being intelligent primate predators, while also being scavangers, and gatherers. We also display extremely high levels of social complexity which are really only mirrored by creatures such as ants or bees. Our intenlligence and conciouness enables us basically to extremely adaptable to our circumstances. The taboo on murder is obviously a useful thing in a complex society, as is heirarchical social structures, the ability to be nurturing and loving, as well as the capability to be very agressive and violent on occasion. There's nothing mystical about that.

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 using deductive and inductive reasoning.

Actually, I tend to disagree, human ideals and principals when deduced from first principles are usually based on some pretty common sense ideas when you take into account what human beings are and what they are not. When the lose touch with reality they tend to become dogma and idelogs. Dielectical problems revolve around the idea that there is a duality or multiplicity to issues such as morality, its a useful critical tool, but it has limitations. It can also often lead to tautology and self-referencing debates that can become meaningless outside of the debate itself.

Dialectical reasoning requires 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.

I'm not sure again what your point is. The starting point for any debate are the facts of base reality as we find it. There are of course many ways of developing critical reasoning to determine what things may mean or if they have any meaning. When you use the term emancipatory reasoning, is that some sort of code for being open minded on possibilities, that would seem to make sense as long as its not a justification for credulity.

How to build the atomic bomb is a technical problem. Whether to build the bomb or what to do with it after it is built is a real life problem.

No building an atomic bomb also involves some real world problems. And judgements on whether to use it are based on morality, effectiveness, survivability, and consequences. Very rational, as long as you accept that human morality is based on common sense logic. There is no philosophy particular to atomic weapons that does not also apply to all weapons or conflict in general.

The critically self-conscious learner is a person who has developed a passion for rational solutions to problematic ends. Instrumental rationality is designed to solve problems of means when the end is clear. Normal science, the science of means, is guided and controlled by paradigms. Paradigms are single dimensional structures that insure that means solutions do not stray from the straight and narrow.

Rationality is not just used for problems that have clearly defined ends. Its simply a framework for looking in a reality that puts causality as the definining feature of the universe. Thats why the basic launguage of Science is mathematics, not English or Arabic or German, as none of this human languages has the logical lucidity and predictive power of mathematics in a universe defined by Causality.

Such systems are designed for puzzle solutions that are perfectly acceptable for single dimensional problems. The problematic situation that presents itself is just how to approach the determination of ends when such matters are mostly multi-dimensional without paradigms and generally demanding the agreement of two or more reflective agents. There are no paradigms for multi-dimensional problems.

This is metaphysics and does not accuratly represent the scientific method. Trying to understand the nature of the universe is an open ended problem, and the scientific method has evolved into its present form because it seems that its the best way of determining what the universe is, and also most accuratly reflects the nature of reality.

Instrumental rationality is not a method suitable for developing ends. Dialectical rationality is the only mode of reasoning suitable for arriving at satisfactory ends.

Here I agree. Human instictive needs are not based on us making rational decisions about outcomes, but are informed by our biology and that of life in general, as well as the condition we find oursleves living in. Philospophy is as useless as science in changing this unless we somehow change our basic nature, which is not something I would wish to do.

In a criminal jury trial each juror ideally begins hearing the case as a mental blank slate. The witnesses engage in a controlled and guided dialogue wherein each witness communicates to the jury their particular truth regarding the matter under consideration. Each juror modifies his or her blank slate as the witness’s parade through; each providing his or her view of the truth. A dialogue takes place for the benefit of the juror who is not a member of the dialogue.

Each juror is required to reason dialectically. Dialectical reasoning is a process wherein the opinion of the juror is molded and remolded based upon the truths presented. The blank slate becomes slate A after witness A and then becomes slate A-B after witness B and then becomes slate A-B-C, etc.

At the end of the trial the jurors assemble in isolation to determine a verdict. Generally the members are polled to determine if all agree upon the truth of the case. If one or more jurors dissent from the others a new dialogue must take place. The jurors begin a dialogue in an attempt to reach a unanimous decision.

In this stage each juror is engaged in communication in dialogue while simultaneously each juror is engaged in a rational dialectic.

A jury trial might be a useful example of a problem engaged by many reflective agents with a multiplicity of frames of reference. In such a situation the jury must utilize communicative techniques to enter into a dialogue wherein there is a constant dialectic until a unanimous solution is reached or deadlock prevails.

Yes, this is all very interesting in theory, but again this is an ideal and does not exist in reality. People on Juries come complete with a life experience in a certain culture, region of the world, and society that informs all their value judgements. As well as their concisous understnading of the law they are being asked to facilitate and the impact of the outcomes they are trying to reach. One of the major problems in all philosphy is that speculations are based on generalizations or idealized situations that don't actually exist. Idealized situations and generalizations are interesting, but it should always be kept in mind that they are intrinsically unsound in terms of "truth". You do not have blank state human beings in any circumstance, no more than you could have an environment that was completely neutral or irrelevant, einstein proved that once and for all with general relaitivty.

Communicating by dialogue together with reasoning dialectically is a technique for attempting to solve multi-dimensional problems. Problems that are either not pattern like or that the pattern is too complex to ascertain.

Again communicating by dialogue is great, as long as you remain aware that human langugae is very limited in its range and ability to make precise definietions, and also that frames of reference have to be arbitrary by their nature, (such as your jury analogy) as their is no privilidged frame of reference from which to determine the value of any such dialogue.

Most problems that we face in our daily life are multi-dimensional in nature. Simple problems that occur daily in family life are examples. Each member of the family has a different point of view with differing needs and desires. Most of the problems we constantly face are not readily solved by mathematics because they are not pattern specific and are multi-dimensional.

Again, yes, but obviously peolpe in dealing with everyday problems make pretty rapid value judgements on which parts of a multi-dimsional problem are most pertinent based on common sense, if they didn't people could spend the rest of the lifetime of the universe deciding on who precisely has the most right to get the last potato at dinner. This is one of the reasons why philiophers can often make their discipline seem unnecessarily abstract and meaningless to real-world problems.

Dialogue is a technique for mutual consideration of such problems wherein solutions grow in a dialectical manner. Through dialogue each individual brings his/her point of view to the fore by proposing solutions constructed around their specific view. All participants in the dialogue come at the solution from the logic of their views. The solution builds dialectically; from a thesis and a contrasting thesis, a synthesis is constructed that takes into consideration both proposals. From this synthesis, a new thesis has developed.

Yes, again an idealized situation in which all the particpants are considered to be equal in terms of their positions, reasoning abilities, attitude, ideals, ability to influence the others, their sex, their social positions, the esteem which they have relative to each other, etc. Useful for analyzing the dynamics of human interaction, but again breaks down in real world situations.

Our schools have decided that our children should learn to be critical thinkers. I agree with their judgment. This disciplined form of thought is important to each child and is vitally important to our society. I have attempted to relay to you my sense of the importance of critical thinking in the hope that you may share that judgment and lend your support to the school system in this vital matter.

Finally, yes of course I agree that children should be taught to "think about thinking" as if were, as long as this does not become some sort of agenda for them to also not retain their instinctive understanding that they have to live in the world as it is, not as we might wish or believe it to be. Thats an invitation to credulity, and an invitation to celebrate intellectualism for its own sake, which is foolish and also pointless.

You know, I really wish that you could make your prose stlye a little less flowery, it takes a couple of readings to see what you are actually getting at. It makes arguing these points quite difficult and tiring, thats a well meant criticism now not a cheap shot. Accuracy, simplicity, and brevity are very good ideas to attain when using the written word to express your ideas.

Galbally

Whoo! You have given me some things to think about. I shall have a reply for you tomorrow. Thank you for your response and your patience.

Galbally



In this thread I have focused on two fundaments issues, dialogic versus scientific process, and instrumental rationality versus communicative action rationality. These two issues reflect one another in important ways.

In both matters I am expressing conventional wisdom as I understand it to be. The matter of dialogic versus scientific process I learned by studying CT (Critical Thinking) and in the second matter of instrumental rationality versus communicative action rationality I learned through studying social science.

I am a retired electronics engineer and these particular domains of knowledge I learned because they interest me. I have been an active self-learner for 25 years and in those efforts I move about studying whatever matters that arouse my curiosity.

My expressions are reflections of conventional wisdom and I have really said just about all that I know about these matters. We seem to disagree about both matters but I cannot add any more than I have said without just repeating myself. I appreciate your responding to my post.

coberst wrote: Galbally



In this thread I have focused on two fundaments issues, dialogic versus scientific process, and instrumental rationality versus communicative action rationality. These two issues reflect one another in important ways.

In both matters I am expressing conventional wisdom as I understand it to be. The matter of dialogic versus scientific process I learned by studying CT (Critical Thinking) and in the second matter of instrumental rationality versus communicative action rationality I learned through studying social science.

I am a retired electronics engineer and these particular domains of knowledge I learned because they interest me. I have been an active self-learner for 25 years and in those efforts I move about studying whatever matters that arouse my curiosity.

My expressions are reflections of conventional wisdom and I have really said just about all that I know about these matters. We seem to disagree about both matters but I cannot add any more than I have said without just repeating myself. I appreciate your responding to my post.


Thats an honest response. I studied science, chemistry, I would say that coming from a engineering backgroud I could see why you would see the large gulf between dielectic reasoning and the very technical ethos of engineering, which I think is true, but thats the nature of engineering, it is a problem solving enterprise. I think that actual science and engineering are very different, and science falls somewhere inbetween the 2, though in reality its closer to philosophy. Scientists do not have answers that they are trying to get to, unlike engineers, they have questions that they wish to ask, the answer is irrelevant to the wishes of the people involved in asking the question, its simply sufficient that it can be verified by impirical means within a standard of statistical toleration. Thats why its open ended. For example scientists at the time of say James Clerk Maxwell, who discovered many of the laws of electomagnetism in the 1880s, would have had no idea that his discoveries would eventually lead to the discoveries of relativity and quantum mechanics, and probably would have been agasht as it would have conflicted with their very ridgid veiws on causality, but thats what happened in the 20th century. Scientists discovered these things, not because they wished to find them or even knew they were there, it was just that these were the truths that revealed themselves to investigation. I think unfortunatly in the 20th century, science outstripped the other intellectual disciplines and many of the major findings made during that time and their implications have not been really understood or tackled by philosophers or religious thinkers, as Wittegstein once famously admitted "Philosophy has been reduced to the analysis of launguage" but they will catch up, particulary if in this century the unification of physics occurs and as our understanding of the relationship between genetics and human conciousness increases. Of course whether that actually happens remains to be seen.

Galbally

Could you take a shot at defining who is a scientist?

What is science? The dictionary gives essentially two definitions of 'science'. Science is a department of systemitized knowledge as an object of study and such knowledge concerning the physical world and its phenomena (natural science)

coberst wrote: Galbally

Could you take a shot at defining who is a scientist?

What is science? The dictionary gives essentially two definitions of 'science'. Science is a department of systemitized knowledge as an object of study and such knowledge concerning the physical world and its phenomena (natural science)


Well, thats a good point. There are a lot of sciences that are phenomological (simply based on observation) like say sociology or anthropology, while some are a mix of observation, impirical experiment, and mathematical logic and deduction like chemistry and biology. Physicists and cosmologists are the purest "Scientists" as they work on the most fundamental aspects of reality and use the strictest and most rigourous logical and mathematical framework. Everything is really a subset of physics. Unfortunatly they know this and lord it over everyone else in science, but they are the best really. People tend to think that science is all very twee and academic, but it isn't really, they are always fighting and arguing, and jocking for position. Its actually an extremely demanding career, both mentally and in terms of pressure, and you can expect to get torn apart by your peers when you get things wrong from time to time. I never ended up in pure research, which I regret, though I am still young enough to go back into it if I want, but its no picnic, and if you choose the wrong area, your screwed in terms of your career.

The Heirarchy is like this.

Physicsists/Cosmologists



Chemists.

Biologists.













Everything else.

Galbally

I think that the word 'science' and its meaning is grossly missused in our society. This results in great misunderstanding. The following post I made some time ago speaks to this matter.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Ethics is a Science (domain of knowledge)

When we think of ethics as a science (domain of knowledge) we can concentrate on learning the principles of ethics just as we would any other science. To be skilled in any science we must comprehend the fundamental principles of that science and we must learn how to utilize those principles in an objective manner.

Although ethics can be studied as a science it must also be studied as a matter of judgments made by humans under great sociocentric forces. Ethical principles must be applied in very complex situations in which we have only partial comprehension and are forced to make quick judgments.

What strategic elements can we rely on to help us in our effort to become sophisticated ethical agents? I think there are three such elements necessary for consideration when difficult ethical questions must be considered.

• Mastering ethical concepts and principles

• Distinguishing the science of ethics from other sciences or thinking

• Mastering the self when great ego, economic, and socio centric forces are in play

I think that at least some ethical principles are universal and to look for those principles I turn for guidance to the Universal Declaration of Human Rights established in 1948 by the General Assembly of the United Nations.

Here are a few principles laid out in the 30 articles of the declaration:

* All humans are equal in dignity and rights.

* All humans have the rights of life, liberty, and security.

* No human shall be enslaved.

* No human shall be tortured.

* All humans have a right to an adequate standard of living.

* All humans have a right to education.

* All humans have a right to peacefully assemble.

* All humans are equal under the law.

Many of these ideas come from “Critical Thinking: Tools for Taking Charge of Your Professional and Personal Life by Paul and Elder.

I think that we should study ethics both as a science and as a judgment made by humans under very difficult situations. What do you think about this matter?