Want to support the channel? Now you can! 💸 Patreon: patreon.com/thelivingphilosophy ☕ ko-fi.com/thelivingphilosophy ⌛ Timestamps: 0:00 Introduction 1:19 The Traditional vs. Kuhnian History of Science 4:42 Paradigm as Disciplinary Matrix 6:08 Paradigm as Exemplar 7:45 Incommensurability and Kuhn Loss 9:25 Different Worlds 11:33 Summary and Conclusion
My friend you are getting really good. Your stuff has been coming up in my feed 10 months or so and there is a steady uptick in quality in every video. Thank you for helping me better understand and contemplate these great thinkers and their primary works. Keep up the great work.
Wow, thanks Nathan that's put a big smile on my face it means a lot from someone who's been tuning in for so many months. Some times I wonder whether I hit a plateau somewhere and always looking for new ways to hone and improve so this is just great to hear thank you!
This is out-frigging-standing. The idea of Kuhn loss is fascinating. And in my experience, words like "paradigm" and "conduit" are used by professors and lecturers who like to speak a lot but say little. Everything is a 'conduit' that leads to a 'paradigm'. Thank you for making it make sense.
Once again thanks for the generosity sean in finances and compliments! These two videos on Kuhn are something I'm really proud of. In a way I think I tried to cover too much and got tripped up maybe but I feel like this stuff is so so important for understanding science (which of course is to understand a large foundation of our culture as a whole)
Interestingly reminded me of the work of quantum physicist Lee Smolin who has been engaging with philosophy to try and help his field get unstuck from what he considers the dead-end of string theory. Great work as always!
Oooh really? I recognise the name but there's no other information stuck to it in my mind. That's fascinating and exactly string theory is a perfect example of what Kuhn is getting at with the anomalies/crises which will be explored much deeper in the next episode. Thanks for bringing this to me attention RedRosa! Might even rework the script for the next one to knead this in!
@@TheLivingPhilosophy He's really a fascinating mind. One of his books is entitled "The Trouble With Physics". For a while now, he has been working with philosopher Roberto Unger to help think through to a new paradigm.
@@RedRosa Huh that sounds incredible. I was a big fan of Stephen Hawking's works when I was younger so I wonder whether my basic knowledge of physics would enable me to follow his train of thought. I'd love to see into his mind as he's trying to do something like that. I've noted it in my reading recommendations list so I'm sure I'll find out!
Although Kuhn was cagey about applying his theses beyond science it takes a lot of restraint not to take that leap. It just maps so productively across so many fields that it was bound to become a useful item in every thinker's toolkit
Oooh now that's a great question. I am going to explore this in depth once I'm talking about Foucault and I may even do a video specifically on this. They seem to be closely related but just that they evolved out of two very different traditions (French philosophy vs American philosophy of science). So I can't give you a great answer now but if you're patient it is on the way!
Great video. What are your thoughts on Kuhn’s statement that “it is precisely the abandonment of critical discourse that marks the transition to a science.” Do you think Kuhn was correct in his view on this? Are there examples from the history of science and the philosophy of science that can show whether this is true or not?
Hmm good question Jimmy. It actually makes perfect sense to me. You don't need critical discourse once you have a paradigm because you have agreed upon a certain language and on the direction of the field. Once the cracks appear in the paradigm this critical discourse inevitably re-emerges so it's not a major worry for those who like critical discourse no doubt. As far as examples I remember Newton as being a great example by giving optics its first paradigm. There was loads of other examples in the book Lavoisier was another prominent one in chemistry or Ptolemy for astronomy
Haha thanks Embassador! Trying to add a bit of extra spice and keep learning new tricks of the trade as I go along! Thanks for noticing and commenting!
Science operates semi-happily in the Method Matrix (being nerds they do tend to waffle and squabble endlessly and tirelessly over the little things). But Mathematics is not a Science and that is the distinction Kuhn was unwilling to accept. Eternally useful in the lower-level order of things (cooking, making maps, replacing spokes) Maths is a lovely tool, but it has nothing to offer when the 'why' questions surface. Like the European school his conclusions tend to support the determinist narrative of the human, being central to reality. But there is an entire Cosmos which has no use for us whatsoever. We will not connect with any God (who doesn't write full textbooks, is emotionally stable, etc.,) and thus could be very surprised by our still being around.
I mean it is and it isn't. It's a worldview that you will inevitably outgrow but that is just life - just because homo erectus evolved into homo sapiens it doesn't mean that the state of being homo erectus was inferior or a prison. At least that's my take on it. Although to stick with the evolution analogy the thought of living at the same time as AI that is infinitely beyond human capacities would be painful I think and probably feel imprisoning. But I guess the point is there will always be paradigms so a paradigm is only a prison if there's a more useful one that you could but aren't utilising
@@Jimmylad. Yes! This is something really fascinating that Kuhn explores. The distinction he is making between his philosophy of science and the traditional one is that the traditional one is teleological i.e. it has an end in mind (Truth with a capital T) whereas the model of scientific development he is proposing is not teleological but evolutionary - it doesn't have an end point but it is developing and growing more sophisticated. It could have played out otherwise (just as the evolution of life on earth could have). The details can change but the entropic tendency is headed the same direction: towards greater complexity and organisation. It's a really fascinating insight in Kuhn. There are greater paradigms to achieve but there is no final great Paradigm (with a capital P)
@@Jimmylad. Yeah it's something I still coming to terms with myself and hopefully will be able to explain more clearly in the next video or more likely the third video on Kuhn's work. It's a really important idea and really exciting for a lot of reasons
Science is a tool brought to us by the Church/the called out/the elect, and when we progress, as a Christian society, a new paradigms emerges. This is what we're experiencing. The supposed self-proclaimed liberal progressives have progressed down a digressive neoliberal secular woke religious/cultish (a form of Hegelian cultism) dead-end where many will remain trying to CONSERVE the secular postmodern "mass society" era. We're in the new postsecular transhistorical metamodern "network society" paradigm. The world will continue to PROGRESS in the RIGHT direction where traditional liberalism and progressivism now fall. See our society is solidly built upon the Western Canon and atop that hierarchy of work sets The Word of God/The Bible. This not only makes the Bible true but the foundation of truth itself. The sacredness of God's Word/The Bible marks the beginning of the collection of knowledge that's allowing us to have this conversation on every level.
![Blox Fruits Dragon Rework Update [Full Stream]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/EqDAp8udhm0/mqdefault.jpg)
Want to support the channel? Now you can!
💸 Patreon: patreon.com/thelivingphilosophy
☕ ko-fi.com/thelivingphilosophy
⌛ Timestamps:
0:00 Introduction
1:19 The Traditional vs. Kuhnian History of Science
4:42 Paradigm as Disciplinary Matrix
6:08 Paradigm as Exemplar
7:45 Incommensurability and Kuhn Loss
9:25 Different Worlds
11:33 Summary and Conclusion
My friend you are getting really good. Your stuff has been coming up in my feed 10 months or so and there is a steady uptick in quality in every video. Thank you for helping me better understand and contemplate these great thinkers and their primary works. Keep up the great work.
Wow, thanks Nathan that's put a big smile on my face it means a lot from someone who's been tuning in for so many months. Some times I wonder whether I hit a plateau somewhere and always looking for new ways to hone and improve so this is just great to hear thank you!
Thanks!
your succinct explanations provide an easy route for broadening views, thank you
My pleasure Joshua thanks for watching!
This is out-frigging-standing. The idea of Kuhn loss is fascinating. And in my experience, words like "paradigm" and "conduit" are used by professors and lecturers who like to speak a lot but say little. Everything is a 'conduit' that leads to a 'paradigm'. Thank you for making it make sense.
Once again thanks for the generosity sean in finances and compliments! These two videos on Kuhn are something I'm really proud of. In a way I think I tried to cover too much and got tripped up maybe but I feel like this stuff is so so important for understanding science (which of course is to understand a large foundation of our culture as a whole)
Interestingly reminded me of the work of quantum physicist Lee Smolin who has been engaging with philosophy to try and help his field get unstuck from what he considers the dead-end of string theory. Great work as always!
Oooh really? I recognise the name but there's no other information stuck to it in my mind. That's fascinating and exactly string theory is a perfect example of what Kuhn is getting at with the anomalies/crises which will be explored much deeper in the next episode. Thanks for bringing this to me attention RedRosa! Might even rework the script for the next one to knead this in!
@@TheLivingPhilosophy He's really a fascinating mind. One of his books is entitled "The Trouble With Physics". For a while now, he has been working with philosopher Roberto Unger to help think through to a new paradigm.
@@RedRosa Huh that sounds incredible. I was a big fan of Stephen Hawking's works when I was younger so I wonder whether my basic knowledge of physics would enable me to follow his train of thought. I'd love to see into his mind as he's trying to do something like that. I've noted it in my reading recommendations list so I'm sure I'll find out!
@@TheLivingPhilosophy I wouldn't worry too much, his books are very reader-friendly. Enjoy!
Thank you for your clear explanation!
Excellent
Thanks Steve!
cannot explained how important these few minutes were important to me. hope you doing more than fine! hug!
Haha thank you Tiago! Delighted to hear it
Great summery of Kuhn’s ground breaking insights concerning science. I especially liked the discussion of incommensurability.
Thanks a million! Delighted you enjoyed it Mr Minister
Great video!
4:30 Are dangers like group thinking, herd mentality etc are addressed also?
I am a scholar of English literature but some theorists we have in literature so this channel is helpful
Thanks Rohit!
Excellent video of an extremely interesting subject.
Glad you enjoyed it!
An excellent review,
Condensed Kuhn's book into 12 minutes.
I think this idea applies to all shifts in understanding not just science. Suddenly reality just looks different in your mind when you think about it.
Although Kuhn was cagey about applying his theses beyond science it takes a lot of restraint not to take that leap. It just maps so productively across so many fields that it was bound to become a useful item in every thinker's toolkit
Ronald, Check out "The Order of Things" by Michael Foucault. He talks about the really big shifts.
Way of his speaking is great
You do fantastic work, thank you. I wish you were my next door neighbor.
The way things are depend on the way I look at them because das world is my ideas and their representations.
I never knew that hotcakes were tossed around. Nobody ever tossed me hotcakes. Please forgive me😅.
If all knowlege is derived from the same axiom(s) or induction(s), could one use it/them to link paradigms?
What is the difference between paradigm and episteme?
Oooh now that's a great question. I am going to explore this in depth once I'm talking about Foucault and I may even do a video specifically on this. They seem to be closely related but just that they evolved out of two very different traditions (French philosophy vs American philosophy of science). So I can't give you a great answer now but if you're patient it is on the way!
Great video. What are your thoughts on Kuhn’s statement that “it is precisely the abandonment of critical discourse that marks the transition to a science.” Do you think Kuhn was correct in his view on this? Are there examples from the history of science and the philosophy of science that can show whether this is true or not?
Hmm good question Jimmy. It actually makes perfect sense to me. You don't need critical discourse once you have a paradigm because you have agreed upon a certain language and on the direction of the field. Once the cracks appear in the paradigm this critical discourse inevitably re-emerges so it's not a major worry for those who like critical discourse no doubt. As far as examples I remember Newton as being a great example by giving optics its first paradigm. There was loads of other examples in the book Lavoisier was another prominent one in chemistry or Ptolemy for astronomy
that "post-modernism" effect was awesome
Haha thanks Embassador! Trying to add a bit of extra spice and keep learning new tricks of the trade as I go along! Thanks for noticing and commenting!
Most people don't understand paradigm
Science operates semi-happily in the Method Matrix (being nerds they do tend to waffle and squabble endlessly and tirelessly over the little things). But Mathematics is not a Science and that is the distinction Kuhn was unwilling to accept. Eternally useful in the lower-level order of things (cooking, making maps, replacing spokes) Maths is a lovely tool, but it has nothing to offer when the 'why' questions surface. Like the European school his conclusions tend to support the determinist narrative of the human, being central to reality. But there is an entire Cosmos which has no use for us whatsoever. We will not connect with any God (who doesn't write full textbooks, is emotionally stable, etc.,) and thus could be very surprised by our still being around.
truth is relative
The beginning of all socio-political exposition.
Are you referring to retooling of dialectism after a synthesis?
like your voice
Thank you kindly!
Sadly the only conclusion I can reach at the end of Kuhn’s work is relativism
Paradigm sounds like a prison to me
I mean it is and it isn't. It's a worldview that you will inevitably outgrow but that is just life - just because homo erectus evolved into homo sapiens it doesn't mean that the state of being homo erectus was inferior or a prison. At least that's my take on it. Although to stick with the evolution analogy the thought of living at the same time as AI that is infinitely beyond human capacities would be painful I think and probably feel imprisoning. But I guess the point is there will always be paradigms so a paradigm is only a prison if there's a more useful one that you could but aren't utilising
@@TheLivingPhilosophy interesting though evolution would imply that their is some great paradigm to achieve
@@Jimmylad. Yes! This is something really fascinating that Kuhn explores. The distinction he is making between his philosophy of science and the traditional one is that the traditional one is teleological i.e. it has an end in mind (Truth with a capital T) whereas the model of scientific development he is proposing is not teleological but evolutionary - it doesn't have an end point but it is developing and growing more sophisticated. It could have played out otherwise (just as the evolution of life on earth could have). The details can change but the entropic tendency is headed the same direction: towards greater complexity and organisation. It's a really fascinating insight in Kuhn. There are greater paradigms to achieve but there is no final great Paradigm (with a capital P)
@@TheLivingPhilosophy wow okay I see now so to him the truth was more fluid Great video
@@Jimmylad. Yeah it's something I still coming to terms with myself and hopefully will be able to explain more clearly in the next video or more likely the third video on Kuhn's work. It's a really important idea and really exciting for a lot of reasons
Don't get too caught up in 'what Kuhn meant...' by things. There might yet be improvements to his thinking.
Science is a tool brought to us by the Church/the called out/the elect, and when we progress, as a Christian society, a new paradigms emerges. This is what we're experiencing. The supposed self-proclaimed liberal progressives have progressed down a digressive neoliberal secular woke religious/cultish (a form of Hegelian cultism) dead-end where many will remain trying to CONSERVE the secular postmodern "mass society" era. We're in the new postsecular transhistorical metamodern "network society" paradigm. The world will continue to PROGRESS in the RIGHT direction where traditional liberalism and progressivism now fall. See our society is solidly built upon the Western Canon and atop that hierarchy of work sets The Word of God/The Bible. This not only makes the Bible true but the foundation of truth itself. The sacredness of God's Word/The Bible marks the beginning of the collection of knowledge that's allowing us to have this conversation on every level.