On Sat, 1 Apr 2000 JKSCHW at aol.com wrote:
> > The paradigms developed in _Theory of Scientific
> > Revolutions_ clearly don't apply to linquistics, or to sociology,
> > political science or any of the other fields in which they are at
> > present so popular. It's all based on a massive misreading of Kuhn.
>
> And why is that, pray tell?
As you rightfully note in the rest of your post, there is a lot of sematic drift to Kuhn's notion of paradigm, some of enriching, some of it sloppy. But I hope we can agree that the central meaning of paradigm attaches to the idea of a scientific revolution.
Before a revolution, there are competing schools. After the revolution, there is a paradigm. A paradigm, in this strong sense, goes hand in hand with normal science. It defines the field of enquiry such that any scientist that doesn't subscribe to is not considered a real scientist. A good example might be the way scientists are regarded today who don't think that AIDS is caused by HIV. When we were in the pre-paradigm stage of competing theories, their views were respectable. Now they are considered to have departed so far from scientific standards and norms as to be considered "anti-science." Researchers can't take their ideas seriously without damaging their own reputations and chances at funding.
I don't believe linguistics has ever in its history had a paradigm in this sense. Especially when you take into account that the natural science paradigms that Kuhn discusses to are all transnational paradigms -- they were simultaneously accepted in this drumming out sense in America, Europe, Russia, China and India. Political science and sociology and cultural studies have never had paradigms like that, so in the strong sense, they've never had paradigms. In Kuhn's terms, they seem to be eternally stuck at the pre-paradigm stage of competing schools.
Michael __________________________________________________________________________ Michael Pollak................New York City..............mpollak at panix.com