I think Kuhn's idea of revolution as defining movement between paradigms
comes not from speed but from the idea that change is not adaptive nor
necessarily progressive, but is instead based on the failure of the dominant
paradigm to solve crucial problems (hence problem solving at the unit of
analysis). As a matter of fact my reading is that within Kuhn's framework
of change the idea of evolution actually works against change. This is
because those who are most wedded to the paradigm will continuously make the
argument that the paradigm itself is evolving and should not be abandoned.
They will always make the argument just one more experiment, just one more
twist or turn to the theory and the paradigm is right back on course.
Change though means a complete break, a giving up on the idea that a
paradigm can actually adapt, and there is a revolution in thinking.
Michael
________________________________
From: xmca-bounces@weber.ucsd.edu on behalf of Andy Blunden
Sent: Mon 6/20/2011 9:33 AM
To: Carol Macdonald
Cc: eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity
Subject: Re: [xmca] Units of Scientiic Achievement
Well, the literature on that book would probably fill a library so I ought
to limit myself.
I don't know where the idea of "no revolutions" comes from, but I would
have thought that the idea that the dominant paradigm being gradually eroded
in the very process of working itself out is pretty suggestive. Maybe the
fall of Apartheid didn't live up to the image of a revolution either?
Anyway, I think there are a lot of parallels with both Vygotsky and Hegel,
so long as one remains within the confines of a closed scientific community.
The main thing I was struck by was Kuhn's notion of concepts as problem
solution.
Vygotsky said it many times, but for example from "The development of
thinking and concept formation in the adolescent" in the Vygotsky Reader:
"only during the course of some intelligent activity directed toward the
attainment of a specific goal or the solution of a particular problem, can a
concept come into being and take form." Or this paragraph:
"In contrast to the process of maturation of instincts and inborn
drives, the impelling force which determines the start of any process or
initiates any evolving mechanism of behaviour and propels it forward along
the path of further development, is not to be found inside, but outside the
adolescent and, in this sense, the problems thrown up in front of the
maturing adolescent by the society around him, which are connected with the
process of growing into the cultural, professional and social life of
adults, are extremely important functional aspects which continually depend
on the reciprocal conditionality and the organic coherence and internal
unity of form and content in the development of thinking."
When you say "the cell concept of the concept is there all the time," I
presume you mean the paradigm which is generating the problem-solving
activity? Yes, until it falls into crisis. So you have an ideal, which first
arose as a solution to a total crisis, and then sets up a new project to
establish itself and solve its own problems. And thus all the subordinate
concepts, its "special principles" (to use Hegel's phrase) appear in the
form of problems needing to be solved. But the solution or not of every
problem ricochets back on the "cell" as you call it.
Does that make sense?
Andy
Carol Macdonald wrote:
It's me, who never has the reference to hand, but apparently, there
aren't actual revolutions, the dominant paradigm gets gets eroded and
eroded over time.
And yes, I can see the unit as the developed concept--but aren't we
going to have to describe what happens as this thing is developing? So I
don't think it is totally compelling. Of course I may be missing something,
and the cell concept of the concept is there all the time? What do you
think, Andy?
Carol
On 20 June 2011 12:11, Andy Blunden <ablunden@mira.net> wrote:
I have just re-read Kuhn's "Structure of Scientific
Revolutions" after many years. As is often the case with a classic like
this, it proved to be a lot more nuanced than its reception (or my memory of
it).
One of the lines which struck me was this: "the unit of
scientific achievement is the solved problem." (p. 169)
In the context of Vygotsky's writing on true concepts and
the meaning he gives to "unit" this is very profound. Reading Kuhn from
Vygotsky I find very productive.
Andy
--
------------------------------------------------------------------------
*Andy Blunden*
Joint Editor MCA:
http://www.informaworld.com/smpp/title~db=all~content=g932564744
Home Page: http://home.mira.net/~andy/
Book: http://www.brill.nl/default.aspx?partid=227&pid=34857
MIA: http://www.marxists.org <http://www.marxists.org/>
__________________________________________
_____
xmca mailing list
xmca@weber.ucsd.edu
http://dss.ucsd.edu/mailman/listinfo/xmca
--
Visiting Lecturer
Wits School of Education
Research Fellow
Linguistics Dept: Unisa
-----------------------------------------
HOME (please use these details)
6 Andover Road
Westdene
Johannesburg 2092
+27 (0)11 673 9265 +27 (0)82 562 1050
--
________________________________
*Andy Blunden*
Joint Editor MCA:
http://www.informaworld.com/smpp/title~db=all~content=g932564744
Home Page: http://home.mira.net/~andy/
Book: http://www.brill.nl/default.aspx?partid=227&pid=34857
MIA: http://www.marxists.org <http://www.marxists.org/>
__________________________________________
_____
xmca mailing list
xmca@weber.ucsd.edu
http://dss.ucsd.edu/mailman/listinfo/xmca