Science and Christianity (Part 4)

“What is the paradigm?” “We need a new paradigm.” “The emerging paradigm.” Ever heard these phrases before?

Paradigm is one of the most well-worn words in politics, business management, education, and many other areas, not to mention science. I don’t know if the word originated with him, but the one who certainly gave life to the term was Thomas S. Kuhn in his, The Structure of Scientific Revolutions, first published in 1962. I first encountered this work in a sociological theory class more than twenty years ago, and I still count it one of the most important books I have ever read.

Kuhn demonstrates that a paradigm in science is a model for how some aspects of the physical world operate. The paradigm guides assumptions scientists make about the interrelatedness of various phenomena. Paradigms often start as loosely defined models with many loose ends. Scientists test theories informed by the paradigm to verify accuracy and further refine the details.

Over time, anomalies begin to emerge. Scientists struggle to understand what these anomalies mean. Sometimes it simply means adjusting an existing paradigm. Other times, the anomalies just will not fit.

Eventually, some scientist, or a group of scientists, will get a vision for a different paradigm. They begin to test hypotheses. As the new paradigm emerges and shows a greater ability to predict results and account for past anomalies, more scientists come on board. However, old paradigms do not die easily; often, there is an extended period of dueling paradigms before one prevails. Even when one does win, there is often an ever-decreasing minority that holds on to the old paradigm for an extended period.

One of the critical points of Kuhn’s work is that science is a distinctly human enterprise. Yes, scientists do (and should) make every effort to be objective in their research. But true objectivity is never entirely achievable. This is especially true in the human sciences, but it is true in the physical sciences as well. For instance, the scientist that has invested decades of their life in one paradigm may find it hard to surrender to the emergence of a new paradigm. It is possible for the leaders of a scientific community whose prestige has been based on the success of an old paradigm, will unite to oppose new paradigms. Personal or philosophical reasons may deter a scientist from embracing certain paradigms. Many scientific endeavors require significant outside funding, and the contributors may have agendas that militate against the acceptance of new paradigms. In such cases, the researcher could stand to lose their livelihood, reputation, and life in some extreme cases.

Furthermore, the impression often given of scientific work is the picture of the diligent researcher, recording data and methodically assembling theoretical models through deduction. Kuhn doesn’t discount the use of deductive reasoning but maintains that much more is happening. Deduction is reasoning from general observations to a specific event. Induction is reasoning from particular events to broader reality. Kuhn shows that a big part of science is what he calls abduction.

In psychology, there is the idea of a gestalt. One sees pieces of a picture, and suddenly, a complete picture bursts into the mind, filling in the missing parts. This is abductive reasoning. Kuhn would argue that this is precisely how many scientific discoveries are made. The scientist will test the missing pieces for validity, of course, but it does not change the fact that most new understanding comes through the highly creative use of abduction.

All of this is to say that science is not a magical high priestly phenomenon that the Modernist era often portrayed and some scientists sought to foster. It is a fallible human enterprise. It has also been one of the most transforming enterprises in the history of humanity over the few centuries, especially in the last hundred years.

So, what does all this mean for Christianity?

[Index]

Comments

[Will Spotts]

Isaac Assimov wrote about what you term abduction in an essay. (I think it was called the Eureka Phenomenon or something similar. It was talking about those moments of insight that aren't really logically arrived at.)

The concept of the paradigm shift really does throw doubt on the notion of peer review. The true breakthroughs are never approved by peers -- who cling to their paragidm, and they have a vested interest in keeping away change. An existing paradigm only allows change in the model of gradual progress (through the outworking of the assumptions of the paradigm). For example, our current medical approach of prescribing drugs has so much of an apparatus vested in its continuation that other approaches, true or false, will have a terrible uphill battle -- and will be legally prohibited if possible. (Kind of like Galileo).

I'm also reminded of the Swift quote: "When a true genius appears in the world, you may know him by this sign, that the dunces are all in confederacy against him."

[Michael Kruse]

I love the swift quote!

I think the the post-modern take has been against science as supreme and wanting to see it for the human enterprise that it is.

[will spotts]

This, and your other ammendations about post-modern perspectives seem to fit my observations.

(I still don't know how to describe it -- and there is to my mind a huge difference between the philosophy and the working philosophy. Some parts of modernism seem to be retained, others are very different. One of the big things that changes is the prominence of the group -- as mentioned in two of the items. Another one is that the progress as absolute value only exists on the idividual and group levels -- i.e. groups evolve, people grow.)