Date: Sun, 13 Dec 1998 17:22:29 -0800 Subject: Re: Paradigms Lost Eric Salstrand wrote: -AT--AT--AT--AT--AT--AT--AT--AT--AT--AT--AT--AT--AT--AT--AT--AT--AT--AT--AT--AT--AT--AT--AT- As a reader of "pop" science, and most recently of the little critter on whom 10 years was spent mapping its genome, I suggest that "dark" matter, genetics, science of "chaos", artificial life (in computers) discovery of a "magentar" which disrupted satellite communications, and long-established quantum physics, all contribute to scientific uncertainties. Other items such as gobal heating, pollution, nuclear and bio-weapons of mass destruction, the great view of cometary fragmenta causing craters on Jupiter the size of Earth, cause a bit of uneasiness. Hugh ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ > Don Smith wrote: > > Given what Lyotard has to say in section 13, “Postmodern Science as the > Search > for Instabilities”, it sees that he might be counted among those who believe > science has found a new paradigm. Consider the following quote from the end > of > the section in which he has just provided several examples of postmodern > research: > > “ The conclusion we can draw from this research (and much more not mentioned > here) is that the continuous differentiable function is losing its > preeminence > as a paradigm of knowledge and prediction. Postmodern science - by > concerning > itself with such things as undecidables, the limits of precise control, > conflicts characterized by incomplete information ‘fracta,’ catastaphies and > pragmatic paradoxes -is theorizing its own evolution as discontinuous, > catastrophic, norectifiable and paradoxical.” > > We pop-Kuhnians believe that the paradigm shift in science, which Lyotard > describes, helps undermine the metanarratives of determinism and ‘science as > truth’ which is part of the hegemony that spreads ‘terror’, to use Lyotard’s > term. > > Thanks, Don > > When I questioned the theory of paradigms, the argument was principally > aimed at those who use it in a reductive manner to see science as a social > construction and nothing but. Neither Kuhn nor Lyotard use the term > paradigm in this manner, so possibly I am simply chasing a pomo straw man, > but nonetheless I persist in seeing science as more than social > construction. Its unique characteristics include an accumulation capable of > absorbing revolutionary changes (paradigm shifts) in a way that goes way > beyond relativistic social fashions and its own rate of change continues to > expand exponentially. In a word, this is not a paradigm. It is a monster. > > What describes this image of science best is not paradigm theory, in my > opinion. Science/technology has now become nothing less than a > hyper-organism, a machinic assemblage in a whirl of positive feedback that > sets its own agenda and establishes it own priorities. We humans are simply > along for the ride. > > What you quote above from PMC could perhaps be described as a paradigm > shift. It is also the main basis in the text for what Lyotard describes as > the possibility as legitimation by paralogy. Is it possible that this > nightmarish state of legitimation by performativity that we now must endure > is only a case of what McCluhan once described as "the original content of a > new technology is always that of the old"? > > Is it possible that we nomadic cyborgs may link ourselves to these > newfangled molar assemblages of machinic desire and ride the wave out into a > new invisible future, or have I simply been drinking too much coffee while > looking at Wired magazine this morning?
Display software: ArchTracker © Malgosia Askanas, 2000-2005