Chuck Grimes wrote:
>Kelley,
>
>You asked what I thought of the passage from Kuhn in relation to
>Hawkes. That's pretty general. I think I can guess what you might be
>getting at (or maybe not).
I was responding to your own claims about Hawkes in response to Carrol, yes.
>The quoteof Kuhn, suggests that there are two
>different aspects to a paradigm shift: a different way of thinking
>about a
>scientific problem or question starts as an intellectual proposition
>and then as it is pursued, there is an accompanying change in
>consensus on how to do that particular kind of science.
>
>So then Hawkes might be suggesting that Gould through a paradigm
>shift
>in looking at evolutionary questions (cognitive), might lead others
>to effect at some later stage the way those questions and possible
>answers are to be sought out (normative).
In the postscript he talks about the variety of ways he uses the term, paradigm.
>Then there is the further idea of Kuhn's that scientific revolutions,
>or bursts of activity only appear now and then, while most of time
>there is stasis.
well, i wouldn't call it statis. science is getting done (and it was getting done in the pre-paradigmatic statge, too. but there wasn't what he calls 'normal' science: where scientists share a common understanding about what are and are not the important questions to pursue.
under paradigmatic scientific work, the work of the scientific community is more matter of fact, incremental, daily grind.
normal science makes progress--it's just that the progress isn't toward anything. that is, science isn't progressively getting us closer to the truth.
(that's from memory--had to write qualifying exam on this topic--i'm a wee bit hazy)
>In other words, scientific work itself can be
>historically characterized as a punctuated equilibrium. He went
>further to say that the standards or criteria themselves are changed
>in the process, and that prior shifts are not absorbed by later ones.
i think he says that the paradigm changes actually requires a retrospective reappropriation of earlier paradigms. again, hazy.
So Gould's idea of evolution by punctuated equilibrium is echoed in Kuhn's idea of scientific history as punctuated equilibrium.
kuhn's argument is that paradigms are necessary for science to progress or, at least, that paradigmatic science seems to have enabled science to progress thus far.
this steady progress is punctuated by scientific revolutions--paradigm shifts that don't have to be profound or dramatic--that start that field on a new path and progress begins anew from that new paradigm. the paradigm shift, moreover, can take place rather slowly over the course of years and it can result from the work of many people.
>Given the historical sequence of first Kuhn then Gould, it suggests
>that Gould was influenced by Kuhn---if not directly then indirectly
>as
>these sorts of ideas were in the air at the time and Kuhn's work
>wasn't the only source. In fact, just about everybody who has read
>history wonders how come there are long periods were nothing seems to
>go on, and then suddenly a couple of generations seem to overhaul
>everything (part of Carrol's point for which he took a lot of
>needless
>shit).
that wasn't carrol's point at all.
<snip>
>Anyway Kelley, you should flesh out what you were trying to get at.
you'd mentioned that you were going to look up Kuhn's book. I was asking you to look up that passage when you did and we could discuss it more. Hawkes will be back by then, too.
kelley
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: PGPfreeware 7.0.3 for non-commercial use <http://www.pgp.com>
iQA/AwUBPP8HHrj/k4M/OpU9EQKt0wCffEZu8kal/rHjjBR3vt/mxzj4HZEAoOIZ 9iv8V+wfZY0GFuh2AF02Fr+7 =d5Bi -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
>Chuck Grimes