Date: Mon, 14 Dec 1998 14:18:56 +0200 (EET DST) Subject: Re: Paradigms Lost Help me to clearify whether paradigms of modern fractal geometry and thermodynamical reaserches in the realms of chaos and nonlinearity are lost =F3r NOT???????? On Sun, 13 Dec 1998, hugh bone wrote: > 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, =93Postmodern Science as the > > Search > > for Instabilities=94, 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: > > > > =93 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 =91fracta,=92 catastaphies and > > pragmatic paradoxes -is theorizing its own evolution as discontinuous, > > catastrophic, norectifiable and paradoxical.=94 > > > > We pop-Kuhnians believe that the paradigm shift in science, which Lyotard > > describes, helps undermine the metanarratives of determinism and =91science as > > truth=92 which is part of the hegemony that spreads =91terror=92, to use Lyotard=92s > > 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