The Competitiveness of Nations
in a Global Knowledge-Based Economy
November 2002
Harry Hillman Chartrand
Thomas Kuhn’s “Pelican Brief”
2. The Original 1962 Paradigm
2.01 How does science progress, specifically natural science that deals with matter, energy, their interrelations and transformations? And why does its rate of progress exceed, by an order of magnitude, that of all other forms of human knowledge, e.g., the humanities, social sciences and the arts? These are the primary questions addressed by Structure.
2.02 Is it “development-by-accumulation” (1962, 2)? This is, to Kuhn, the ‘orthodox’ view. Science grows through diachronic accumulation of facts, theories, and methods creating an ever larger stockpile of scientific knowledge. It is a rectilinear process rising from a poorer Past to a richer Present to an ever richer Future (Polak 1971, 95-96). Implicitly, this growing body of knowledge leads to some ultimate ‘truth’ about nature, e.g., the ‘intelligent’ design of a theistic agency, or the ‘chthonic’ underworld reality of an atheistic vacuum.
a) Mechanism & Stages
i – Mechanism
2.03 Kuhn denies the orthodoxy and its implicit teleological truth. In its place he offers up a cyclical model powered by an autopoietic or self-reproducing mechanism (Polak 1971 95). In brief, starting from an initial state called ‘pre-paradigm’, the model is a two-stroke diastolic/systolic system emitting the reiterative sequence: paradigm/post-/paradigm/post-/paradigm/ (Fig. 3). Inhaling (diastole) a paradigm is formed by sucking in ‘knowledge’ components (old and new) required to establish and maintain a metabolism called ‘normal science’. Components necessary to establish metabolism include: instruments, language, practice, talent and theory.
2.04 In exhaling (systole), usually in response to an irritating critical mass of observational ‘anomalies’, an existing paradigm expels its components into a post-paradigm or “crisis” environment similar to the pre-paradigm state. An evolutionary struggle ensues from which a new paradigm emerges judged the ‘fittest’ for the practice of future science. In turn, it sucks in some, but usually not all, prior components then adds its own to the mix reestablishing metabolism until the next crisis or ‘revolution’. Past paradigm components not absorbed by the new paradigm constitute ‘Kuhn’s Loss’ (Fuller 1992, 272). Thus progress is not without cost. There is, furthermore, no end to the iterations of the cycle; and, no teleological truth is ever to be attained.
2.05 The ‘diastole/systole’ model derives from breathing and the actions of the heart. It is one of the primal ‘life’ sensations experienced by scientist and non-scientist alike. It tends, as other primal sensations, to pattern human thought, e.g., the cosmological theory of the universe as a rhythmic series of Big Bangs followed by collapse followed by another Big Bang on into infinity.
2.06 Some biological senses, however, are shunned in intellectual (science) and emotional (arts) models of Western thought. In aesthetics, for example, consideration is generally restricted to the ‘distant senses’ of sight and sound. The near senses of touch, taste and smell lead to obscenity, glutony and scatology.
Since the organs of sight and hearing are distance receptors, detachment from direct contact with the physical may be retained, for the other senses call attention to the body, so destroying the isolation of the contemplative mind. Thus the aristocratic attitude of classical Greek culture has been preserved: the conviction of the superiority of the essentially passive aloofness of the meditative spirit and contempt for the practical and manipulative. (Berleant Winter 1964, 187)
2.07 One unique component of the natural sciences – mechanical instrumentation – extends the human senses from the macro- to the micro-cosmic. In effect they add new ‘distant senses’ to the human repertoire. Their impact on and implications for the progressiveness of the natural sciences is, in my opinion, underplayed by Kuhn.
ii – Pre-Paradigm
2.08 Kuhn argues that each natural science begins with “… continual competition between a number of distinct views of nature, each partially derived from, and all roughly compatible with, the dictates of scientific observation and method.” (1962, 4). In effect, each contributor begins anew constructing a foundation upon which to erect his or her understanding of the natural world. Each sees nature in a different and “incommensurate” way (1962: 103, 112, 148, 150; 1969: 198ff). Each looks at the same objective reality seeing another world (1962: 111, 118, 121, 150). Communication between these different worlds is problematic.
2.09 This initial phase gives way, at some point, to a consensus about one and only one view of nature, e.g., ‘Ptolemaic astronomy’. This consensus Kuhn calls ‘a paradigm’. Hence the initial phase is the “pre-” paradigm period (Fig. 3). It is important to note that Kuhn assumes functional, not chronological or calendar, time. This is similar to the arrow of time in microeconomic theory in which the short- and long-run are a function of the variability of factors of production e.g., capital and labour. The short-run is the time period in which at least one factor is fixed in quantity; the long-run is when all factors are variable. These periods vary significantly between industries, e.g., capital intensive steel and labour-intensive retail fast-food. To Kuhn, they vary in temporal terms between and among the natural sciences while other knowledge domains (the arts, humanities and social sciences) have yet to attain a normal science metabolism.
2.10 A paradigm consists of a set of integrated and self-reinforcing components including: theory; language (especially rhetoric, i.e., how to make an effective argument or proof); instruments; praxis or customary practice (in the use of relevant theory, language and instruments); and, talent. The mutual reinforcement of these components converts them into a whole greater than the sum of their parts. Thus a paradigm becomes an autopoietic or self-maintaining organization like a cell, organism or corporation as in Galbraith’s technostructure (Galbraith 1967). In this sense the pre-paradigm phase is prebiotic consisting of precursors of a self-contained and self-reproducing paradigm. It is pre-scientific.
2.11 As to the source of initial (and subsequent) paradigms, Kuhn identifies two. First, he draws on intuition describing it in terms like “scales falling from the eyes”, “lightning flash” and “illumination” (1962, 123). He notes that:
…the new paradigm, or a sufficient hint to permit later articulation, emerges all at once, sometimes in the middle of the night, in the mind of a man deeply immersed in crisis. What the nature of that final stage is - how an individual invents (or finds he has invented) a new way of giving order to data now all assembled - must here remain inscrutable and may be permanently so. (1962, 89-90).
2.12 Second, he draws on ‘the cult of genius’ including a pantheon of luminaries such as Ptolemy, Copernicus, Galileo, Newton and Einstein (Woodmansee 1984, 446, 47ff [Zilsel 1918]). He thereby dates normal science from ‘Ptolemaic astronomy’ (1962: 10, 23, 67-69, 75-76, 82, 98, 115, 154, 156). Thereby he highlights science as an ancient ‘way of knowing’ with a rich historical pedigree. Ptolemy, implies Kuhn, was not just ‘right’ for his time, but also the progenitor of ‘normal science’. Kuhn does not fail to highlight the “Western” origins of this unique epistemological practice (1962, 167-168), one that emphasizes process over product, specifically, as will be seen, puzzle solving over puzzles. This emphasis on the Western origins of normal science was a part of the greatest political economic puzzle of the late 20th century - the Cold War (Fuller 2000, 391).
3 STAGES 5 INDIGENOUS COMPONENTS
Pre-Paradigm: - no consensus, prebiotic, pre-science Instruments - extension of human senses
Paradigm: - consensus, metabolic, normal science Language - alphabet, syntax, rhetoric, vocabulary
Post-Paradigm: - consensus breakdown, interphasal, Practice - tacit knowledge for forcing nature
extraordinary science Talent - cadre & recruitment
Theory - codified knowledge about ‘natural laws’
4 EXOGENOUS FACTORS
Aesthetics - neater, more suitable, or simpler than the old
Evolution - fittest for future science; absorb (part/whole) components previous plus new
External Forces - economics, politics, religion, society
Psychology - gestalt switching and the search for the infinite divisor
iii – Paradigm
2.13 Once a consensus has been struck the paradigm locks in. Most, if not all, members of a scientific community begin, in effect, to sing from the same hymn book. They see the same nature; they speak the same language; they use the same instruments; they practice science in the same way. This allows division and specialization of labour and ‘normal science’ is ignited (1962: 5-6, 10, 24-34, 80). It is the abundant harvest from normal science that, to Kuhn, creates the illusion of rectilinear progress. However, meaningful insights are lost when normal science kicks in. Accordingly, scientific progress measured by ‘knowledge’ accumulation is accompanied by collateral losses – of theories, instrumental results and language, the so-called ‘Kuhn’s Loss’. Kuhn’s description reads somewhat like Schumpeter’s “creative destruction” and its effects on the economy (Schumpeter 1942):
After the [paradigm] … , scientists [are] able to account for a wider range of natural phenomena or to account with greater precision for some of those previously known. But that gain was achieved only by discarding some previously standard beliefs or procedures and, simultaneously, by replacing those components of the previous paradigm with others.” (1962, 66)
2.14 For Kuhn, normal science is puzzle-solving (1962, 36-39). Paradigms present puzzles that scientists are driven to solve. Even a consensus that a paradigm is ‘right’, however, leaves some questions unasked and some answers incomplete. The unasked questions and incomplete answers of a paradigm are the stock and trade of normal science.
2.15 Kuhn contrasts puzzle-solving with discovery which is, in the orthodox view, the primary source of progressiveness in science. Unlike discovery, a puzzle presupposes a solution. A paradigm provides the equivalent of an 8 x 8 chessboard on which a dynamic puzzle can be solved assuming specific rules, practices and procedures defined by, and defining, the paradigm. Thus ‘normal’ science does not involve discovering new or novel games but rather finding solutions to puzzles posed by a paradigm. Like searching under a street light for something dropped in the dark, if it is there, it will be found. Normal science practices under the street lamp; it does not roam into the dark. That is the Kuhnian realm of extraordinary science during the post-paradigm period of the cycle (1962, 82-89).
2.16 The modus operandi of normal science produces progress measurable by new and improved solutions to puzzles created or implicit in an existing paradigm. The intellectual ‘fixation’ of a ‘normal’ scientist resembles that portrayed in John Barth’s 1966 novel Giles Goatboy: or The Revised New Syllabus. His is a world divided into campuses, two of which – West and East Campus – struggle for control of the University. Scientists search for the infinite divisor because each time one side succeeds in reducing the discrepancy between theoretical and experimental results by half, an opposing scientist cuts the remaining difference by half, and so on and so on. The ultimate weapon is the infinite divisor so that prediction and result become one.
2.17 The narrowing of concentration characteristic of normal science is both its blessing and its curse. The spotlight provided by a paradigm permits effective observation and accumulation of data furthering the puzzle-solving process. The fact that attention is concentrated only under the light means that ‘outriders’ are simply not seen or actively ignored until they accumulate to crisis proportions. The inherently conservative nature of a paradigm does, however, stop random searches for rainbows and concentrates attention and resources on puzzles on hand increasing the chance of finding solutions, hence contributing to the apparent ‘progressiveness’ of normal science. As Kuhn puts it:
Anomaly appears only against the background provided by the paradigm. The more precise and far-reaching that paradigm is, the more sensitive an indicator it provides of anomaly and hence of an occasion for paradigm change. In the normal mode of discovery, even resistance to change has a use .... By ensuring that the paradigm will not be too easily surrendered, resistance guarantees that scientists will not be lightly distracted and that the anomalies that lead to paradigm change will penetrate existing knowledge to the core. (1996, 65)
iv – Post-Paradigm
2.18 In exploring initially unasked questions and incomplete answers, ‘anomalies’ or ‘violations of expectations’ predicted by a paradigm begin to appear. With further puzzle-solving, some can be absorbed and explained thereby expanding the ambit of the existing paradigm. Others, however, can not be resolved. As ‘hard’ cases accumulate and/or as improved instrumentation reveals new ones, confidence in a paradigm begins to slip. A crisis of confidence emerges and a post-paradigm stage begins. Some scientists respond by trying harder to accommodate significant anomalies; others propose alternative paradigms. In essence, an evolutionary struggle ensues to determine the fittest paradigm to direct the future practice of science. Once the winner emerges a new paradigm locks in, with consequences similar to those leading from the pre- to the paradigm stage: the new sucks in prior components (with an attendant ‘Kuhn’s Loss’) adds its own and reestablishes metabolism (normal science) until the next crisis or ‘revolution’.
2.19 Kuhn is principally concerned with process rather than product, i.e., how knowledge is attained not what it is. This is reminiscent of Shackles’ description of the ultimate meaning of Chapter 12 in Keynes’s General Theory:
Keynes’s whole theory of unemployment is ultimately the simple statement that rational expectation being unattainable, we substitute for it first one and then another kind of irrational expectation: and the shift from one arbitrary basis to another gives us from time to time a moment of truth, when our artificial confidence is for the time being dissolved, and we, as business men are afraid to invest, and so fail to provide enough demand to match our society’s desire to produce. Keynes in the General Theory attempted a rational theory of a field of conduct which by the nature of its terms could be only semi-rational. (Shackle 1967, 129).
2.20 The post-paradigm stage can also be compared to the interphase period in mitosis, i.e., when a cell divides and its chromosomes split and duplicate to form the nucleus of a new cell. As a paradigm enters crisis its components, to varying degrees, begin to split off ending the period of normal science and metabolism breaks down. The search for a new paradigm leads sometimes to sources external to the closed disciplinarian world of the existing paradigm. Under the reign of normal science, however, such external sources are generally considered contaminating and error-generating. Kuhn notes, for example, the role of philosophy in guiding a scientific community towards a new paradigm. In a way such external forces act like phage (a viral infection of bacteria) adding new and different slices of DNA to the component strands of normal science. With or without external influence, however, eventually a viable combination of components emerges from the Darwinian struggle and a new paradigm locks in and reestablishes metabolism so normal science begins again.
2.21 Integration of components from the previous paradigm is problematic. In the case of talent, it is achieved primarily through “conversion”, exit from the field and/or, after a non-repentant life worshipping at the altar of a now dead god, exit from a scientific community by death. Kuhn describes conversion as involving ‘gestalt-switching’, fuller implications of which are explored below (2.c.iv - Psychology). (Appendix and Table 1, p. 5: Convert 10 = 9/1/0; % 90/10/0; baseline % 79/16/5).
The Competitiveness of Nations
in a Global Knowledge-Based Economy
November 2002