062 - What's Your Paradigm? Comparing Kuhn's Philosophy of Science with Hegel

The term "paradigm "and "paradigm shift" were made famous by Thomas Kuhn in his landmark 1962 book, "The Structure of Scientific Revolutions". 

Steven Covey describes a paradigm as "frames of reference, worldviews, . . through which we see everyone and everything, including ourselves.  . They affect the way we interpret what we see and experience, and how we interact and relate with others.”

The current naturalistic materialism paradigm of science (and much of the educated world) is beginning to show anomalies, particular in physics where the micro does not jibe with the marco.  And quantum physics itself does not have a consistently accepted theory underlying it. 

Hegel's philosophy has been called "a total system of the world, which included not only physics and the sciences, religion, ethics, but even a history of the world; . .  It was truly a theory of everything— We could really say this was the last great system,” (T. Cahoone).  

Does Hegel's framework represent the true paradigm we should be moving toward?  This episode explores. 

Transcript

Gregory Novak 0:01

Hello, this is Gregory Nowak. This is the cunning of Geist episode 62. Welcome back. The purpose of this podcast is to explore philosophy science and psychology with an emphasis on the great 19th century philosopher. George Wilhem Friedrich Hagle. In this episode, I will be exploring the groundbreaking work of Thomas Kuhn. And in particular, his book, the structure of scientific revolutions published in 1962. Now, why am I devoting an entire episode in this? Well, I believe it's very important. Coon coined the phrase paradigm and his book also paradigm shift. Which, Those terms are now ubiquitous. And I believe that paradigms do play a significant role in the lives of individuals in societies, as well as in most scholarly disciplines, including philosophy science and psychology. And I be getting into this in a lot of detail. But first, let me state the conclusion that I reached and preparing for this episode. And it is this that I believe that the modern world, the world we live in is currently operating under a distinct paradigm. And by paradigm, Quote perceptions frames of reference, worldviews value systems or lenses through which we see everyone and everything, including ourselves. They had meaning true or false to the world around us and affect the way we interpret what we see and experience and how we interact and relate with others and quote that's from Stephen Covey, by the way. Now, let me be clear. It's not that nearly 8 billion people on planet earth share the same paradigm far from it. But what I'm going to be talking about are the educated classes in general. And this change in paradigm, this paradigm shift occurred during the enlightenment. As, as well as with Darwin's theory of evolution. And it moved into the, in, into the intelligent class, became the new paradigm. And the, uh, this class of people moved away for the most part from traditional religion. And into a more scientifically based worldview. And this occurred over several centuries. It began in the 16th century with a scientific revolution. And the result is that we now have a materialistic naturalistic worldview or paradigm that pretty much dominates. In the, in the educated classes. in the world. Not everywhere. I'll be getting into that, but let me list some of the tenants of this naturalistic materialism. That, that are most important. Number one. That life emerged spontaneously on planet earth. From raw chemicals to that, the minds we humans have are the result of evolution alone, meaning that the mind is an epiphenomenon of the brain. Th th three, that there is no inherent meaning or purpose in life other than what we make of it, which happens to be the current existentialist view. For that the origin of the cosmos is unknown. Five. And it's also unknown. What, why it has the laws that it does have the cosmos that's unknown. And finally, six, if science does not know the answer now, It will sometime in the future. Because this is the paradigm that we operate under. So those are the basic tenants of the scientific materialistic paradigm. And my position is that this paradigm is deeply flawed and I'll be discussing in this episode, how the worldview of Hagle provides a better understanding of the true reality of mine, nature and spirit, and yet spirit. Which is basically Nord by the current scientific paradigm. So that is what I intend to show in this episode. I know it's a big task. But Kuhn's work. Interestingly provides a basis that I can use to tackle this issue from a scientific framework as well. Okay. Thomas Kuhn. We've discussed his work several times before, particularly in episode 12, 17 and 26. And, but I thought it was necessary to do a full episode on him because it's so First some background. Coon was an American philosopher of science. He was born in 1922 and passed away in 1996. He grew up in the New York city area. And attended Harvard university, both undergraduate and graduate schools where he obtained. A PhD in physics. He taught the history of science at Harvard for nearly a decade before moving on to the university of California, Berkeley. And it was there that he wrote and published his seminal work, the structure of scientific revolutions in 1962. And that is the work that we'll be focusing on in this episode. Structure as it is called for short. Presents the theory that science does not proceed by incremental improvements to its knowledge base. What actually occurs is that science develops a paradigm and holds onto a dearly. It is only after sufficient cracks in the paradigm appear that the paradigm is questioned and then a new paradigm emerges, which explains the anomalies and a paradigm shift occurs. And the process begins again. No structure heading normous impact in many fields in the 1960s and seventies, some thought it was one of the most important works published in the 20th century. But let me back up a little bit and talk about the philosophy of science in general, which was essentially Koons field. The philosophy of science as a discipline began in the 20th century with logical positivism. Which was an effort by some philosophers to codify what was valid philosophy. There are many people that contributed to the logical positivism movement. But essentially it's belief was in verification, ism. Which means that a statement is fundamentally true. Only if some finite observation backs it up. Therefore metaphysics would be rendered meaningless as would Hegel's philosophy. I remember a good friend of mine years ago telling me. That metaphysics was a joke. So this belief of verification is in persists. And I'll be contending later on that this logical positivism view still prevails today, not just by my friend. But among the educated classes in general, at the dominant paradigm today. Even though it is now been fully discredited is able to show. American philosopher, Charles Pierce we've discussed here offering, particularly in episode 52. Was one of the first philosophers to question his verification as to attitude. He rightly pointed out that it is very tough to differentiate the pure, immediate sense from the observer's interpretation of it. It's all semiotic philosophy is based on that. It is a threefold system, that there is one an object to the sensor perception of that object and three, the interpretation. Of it, of that sensor perception by an interpretant. So it is not just a perception that counts, but our interpretation of this perception. That counts. This throws a monkey wrench into the logical positive it's claimed that all philosophy must be backed up by physical experience. If the physical experience is subject to interpretation, then you're back to philosophy. And you've really gotten nowhere. And this reminds me of Hegel's important notion that everything is both immediate and mediated. Everything. Another critic of logical positivism was the 20th century. Philosopher Karl popper. Popper believed that the problem with induction. Dealt a death blow to verification ism. This file is from David Hume's original criticism that when we observe something occurring, we cannot automatically assume it will repeat that as an And just because my neighbor walks her dog every morning at 7:00 AM does not mean this will go on forever. And. Um, famous philosophical story, just because Emmanuel Khan took his African and walk at exactly the same time each day does not mean that it will go on forever. But this applies to the laws of science as well, not just walking your dog or taking a walk. Just because the sun rises this morning. I assume we will tomorrow, but that's an assumption. It's a good assumption. But it's an assumption, nonetheless. And we can not use an assumption to verify absolutely some law or prediction. It becomes circular reasoning. Santa. I flip a coin a hundred times and each time it comes up heads, I will assume that the next time it will come up. Heads. If science has 100 confirmations. Of an event, it would deem it scientifically proven. It scientifically proves many things with. Far smaller sample size in 100. But assuming that the hundred and first throw would be heads is an assumption, not an absolute fact known in advance. Remember it is theoretically possible for a coin toss to show a head a thousand times in a row or more theoretically possible. And then eventually come up. Tails. Popper developed his own theory of how he felt science should operate. It's called the concept of falsification. Which is this, unless there's a way to disprove a hypothesis or theory, then it cannot be considered science. For example, the law of gravity could potentially be falsified. A person could levitate, for example, other than magicians, anyone could conceivably falsify the theory of gravity through an example. But it's when you get into gray areas, it becomes clearer. For example, ESP, extra sensory perception. In order to be a valid, scientific theory. It would have to be conceivable. Because one cannot get their hands around ESP, since it evolves spooky action at a distance, it was a term Einstein used once to describe quantum physics. it's tough to prove that ESP doesn't exist when you're not even sure what it means to exist in the first place. So as of now, it is not a valid, scientific theory. That is why today many do not consider psychology or sociology of science. It's hard to falsify many claims in these disciplines.'cause they, they tend to be are fluid and take many factors into account. That's not that there's no meaningful insight in these disciplines. They certainly are. They're just not what many would call hard science? So the grounds of the logical positivism movement were shaken by Pearson popper. But it was Coon structured that dealt the final blow. So let's get into it. Basically. In his book, structured, Coon presents his theory that science does not progress bit by bit as accumulated But essentially works within one paradigm for a period of time. Everything is judged by that paradigm. Eventually the existing paradigm becomes problematic and a new paradigm has developed. And a paradigm shift occurs. A good example of the Coon uses. And analyzes is The Copernican revolution, 1543. That stated that the earth rotated around the sun and not vice versa. And your earth was not the center of the universe. Another example is the, is Einstein's revolution, which appended Newtonian physics. Now Coon identified five phases of paradigm development. Phase Is the original phase is pre science. It only occurred once before science was established at all. Phase two is when sciences. We know it begins a dominant paradigm has developed to explain things. All questions or research within that paradigm structure and great progress may entail within that paradigm. You had anomalies can creep in. Usually they are resolved, but not always. If these anomalies grow and they'll go away, normal science becomes more difficult within the existing paradigm. And you move to phase three. Do to mounting anomalies. The paradigm itself is threatened in a crisis. Period begins. This is only resolved by embracing a new paradigm, which is sought for. Which brings us to phase four. A new paradigm is found then and is established to a compass. The anomalies and then five. The new paradigm becomes official and all new questions are solved within this new paradigm. What is significant here is that the new paradigm is fundamentally different from the old is a leap. It's a paradigm shift. The new paradigm can not be defined by the old paradigm. It is not a gradual progression of knowledge, but a jump, a leap in many ways. Like I said before, it's like a galleon simulation. And Kuhn's book made a dramatic impact, not just on the scientific community, but in areas of philosophy, sociology, economics, and political And as I said before, the current paradigm among the educated classes is what I call scientific naturalistic materialism. But crack's anomalies are beginning to appear in this paradigm, particularly in physics as a result of the strange findings of quantum physics. The problem is that the macro view of the universe is developed by Einstein does not fit with the micro world of quantum physics. I understand acknowledge the problem, spend most of the last years of his life looking for a solution. And even within the micro world of quantum physics, there is a crisis. There are many scientific hypotheses as to just what is going on in the strange world of quantum mechanics. In particular. What is the role of an observer or. Th a measurement and actually manifesting reality. And if you are unaware of the many anomalies in quantum physics, I urge you just Google, quantum strangeness. Our quantum physics or some such thing there's so much out there on the internet. It's very easy for novices to understand. So physics I would say is currently in phase three of the crisis phase, and most physicists admitted. Our understanding of the physical world is going through a crisis. And consciousness is in the picture as not readily dismissed. This was particularly hard for many scientists because they see only mechanical laws operating in the universe. That is their paradigm. Consciousness has nothing to do with it. So they believe. And they, however cannot explain how. And elementary particle materializes in one Only when observed or only when measured. The current paradigm does not seem mind is fundamental at all. As I said, it's just an seen And epiphenomena manner. Form to blind purposeless biological evolution. Which brings us to Darwinism. Speaking of evolution. Now Darwin's theory of evolution was a paradigm shift for Sansa big one. And it's the dominant belief today. While some anomalies has shown up. They've been dealt with satisfactorily so far in the minds of most scientists. The biggest anomaly with Darwinian evolution in my view is wildlife appeared in the first place in my consciousness. Sandra mine appeared in the second place. However, because the paradigm is entrenched. If a scientist values their career, they will not question this prevailing paradigm of Darwinism. Perfect example is philosopher Thomas Nagel. We've discussed him before. particularly back in episode 45. And his book mind and cosmos why the materialistic Neo Darwinian conception of nature is almost certainly false. He argues that current Darwinian thinking is incomplete. And he's not coming from a religious standpoint, but a scientific one he's in admitted atheist. He basis his argument that Darwinian evolution cannot explain how life appeared or how consciousness developed among living And unfortunately he was thoroughly denounced by his profession for For example, in, in an influential article in nation philosophers, Brian lighter and. Michael Weisberg, thoroughly trashed and Nagle's book. The article is entitled. Do you only have a brain on Thomas Nagel? A philosopher's broadside against Darwinism in materialism is mostly an instrument of mischief. That's the title of the article. And it, they say, quote, are we supposed to abandoned a massively successful scientific research program? Because Nagel find some scientific claims are hard to square. With what he thinks is obvious and quote. And pop scientists, Steven Pinker, even tweeted, commenting on this article by these two guys. Cool. What has gotten into time as a Nagel, two philosophers exposed the shotty reasoning of a once. Great thinker and quote. So. Obvious the crisis stage has not yet hit Darwinian evolution. But Nagel, if red objectively makes a compelling case that blind materialistic Darwinian evolution can not be the entire story. Contemporary philosopher, Alvin planted. That makes a similar argument. We've discussed him before. Is evolutionary argument against naturalism also says there more, there must be more going on. We know that evolution is driven by the four F's feeding, fighting, fleeing, and reproducing. Abstract thinking and logic are not part of the equation. Because blind Darwinian evolution is no design plan aimed at getting at the truth only. Fighting. Fleeing. Feeding and reproducing. Again, plant again, Nagel and not denying evolution. Just saying that more is going on. So what about Hagle? Let's come bring it back to Hagle. Henkel is often referred to as the last complete system philosopher after Plato and Aristotle. And in that sense, we can look for a Galean paradigm. Let me quote, professor Thomas Cahoon. Cool. Hegel's influence was incomparable. He had presented a total system of the world, which included not only physics in the sciences, religion, ethics, but even a history of the world. A total system that was supposed to be ultimately religious while at the same time, actually describing and scholarly detail. What had happened in the history of the world was truly a theory of everything. Not only everything metaphysical, but everything, historical. We can easily say this was the last great system. And the rest of the 19th century was a period of dealing with Hagle, either pro or con and quote. And that's quite a big statement, a theory of everything. Is Hegel's philosophy of paradigm. I believe it is, although it is far from receiving general acceptance, even in philosophical circles. Currently, there is not one single paradigm among the educated class of philosophers. They're basically two camps, analytic and continental. I may do a. Episode on this in the future. Analytic philosophers would follow mostly English and American philosophers, particularly Bertrand Or continental splits into several sub camps, including existentialism, German idealism and phenomenology. However, I believe a grand paradigm shift may be just beginning, which will affect not only science, but philosophy and psychology And I believe the trend of this paradigm shift is in favor of Hegel's philosophy. And basically, I believe this is because we're in the verge of including consciousness. Mind is part of all in everything. And this may take generations even centuries to work at it and be generally accepted. But that is the path we are on. It's up to us, those that believe mind is foundational to all, to promote and foster this countertrend wherever possible. Now, when I say theory of everything, I don't mean that halos philosophy can predict what you will have for breakfast tomorrow. Or who's going to win the lottery? Nor will it provide the answer to combining the micro and the macro in physics, although it might provide a framework to do just that. But I do believe his philosophy provides an overall general framework for what is happening here. And it includes rational thought nature in this ablation of those two with spirit. Again, as I said in the beginning, I believe that the naturalistic materialism worldview of the educated classes is beginning to show cracks, particularly in physics. Overall, we're not quite in phase three yet. Physics may be, but in general, no, but there are growing concerns within the naturalistic materialistic paradigm. I've covered. And I also mentioned before, and I think it's interesting that that Kuhn's paradigm is a form of regalias ablation. It is a form of lifting up. The old system into a new one. For example, when Einstein came up with the steering of relativity, he didn't have to go and explain what space and time were. There were already established concepts for Newton. But he said, bladed that and came up with this new, Version of the universe through his theory of relativity. But the same is not true for challenging Darwin's theory of evolution today. That is still the holy grail. Look, what happened to Thomas Nagel? but there are some cracks in the blind, random purposeless, materialism, Darwinism, however, Today, you often hear the hard problem of consciousness. And by so doing scientists and philosophers are meaning that it's a hard problem. And this means that there's a crack. If you will. It hasn't been resolved, but it's something that it's at least getting some space in professional periodicals, and there's some degree of openness to it. Although, certainly naturalistic materialism still holds its way. Now as a side note. Please don't mistake me. When I mentioned materialism. I'm not talking about desire for fine things or possessions. I'm talking about the basic notion that all is material all is protons, electrons, neutrons, subatomic particles. And everything develops from blind randomness, everything. Beethoven symphonies developed from blind randomness. And the fact that we have minds, it's just a product of this random process. Now what's interesting though, is if thoughts are just products of neutrons bouncing around in our brains. Uh, neutron itself is not right or wrong. It's Um, falsehood. So when we think a statement is correct or incorrect, A truth or a false center. We saying that that particular neuron is true or false. I don't believe so. So all we think cannot be reduced down to a neural pathway of interaction in a brain. Uh, our minds have a life of their own. No, I'm not saying that the mind is separate from the body in some other realm. Mine is a part of us. It is part of the universe from the get go. This is the shift that must occur though. However, And it's a shift toward recognizing consciousness. Just one other point I'd like to make. There are many educated people who are people of faith, of different religions, and many believe in the human soul and spirit and a higher purpose and their religions can and do provide a paradigm for many and not saying they need to give that up. Hagle himself remember was a deeply religious person. He defined God, his spirit. And the spirit lives within us. And. I should also address before we end a big part of Handel's philosophy. And that is freedom. In fact, the whole history of the cosmos, maybe viewed. As a quest for freedom and haggles paradigm. for spirit to come to know itself and to come to know itself. In its own freedom. But this is not how the current paradigm sees things. The current paradigm denies, freewill. One of the thought leaders of the naturalistic materialism paradigm is Richard Dawkins, biologist, Richard Dawkins. And he argues that our genes are responsible for everything we think say, or do. He argued this in two famous books, the selfish gene in 1976 and the God delusion in 2006. He doesn't believe in freewill. We just no more, no better than programmed robots And programmed by a non-thinking gene, not a thinking organism. Let me quote, leading biologist, Jerry Coyne, another thought leader in the blind evolution can quote. Among virtually all scientists, dualism is dead. Our thoughts and actions are the outputs of a computer made of meat. Our brain, a computer that must obey the laws of physics, our choices, therefore must also obey those laws and quote. I can't put it any clearer than Dr. Coyne. He's expressed the paradigm. Absolutely. These people believe that the body is a computer and we must have bear genes that we're not in charge. You see by these courts, I'm not making this stuff up and there's so many more. And these people like Dawkins and coin, they go relatively and challenged today because they spout the doctrine. Blindly. This is the current naturalistic materialism paradigm, and this is the current situation we So the title of this episode is what's your paradigm. And they ask all of you to consider this. Do you believe that life has a purpose? Do you believe you have some freedom of choice? Do you believe there's a purpose to the cosmos beyond your own goals and aspirations? Do you have a philosophy of life? I believe Hegel's philosophy provides answers to these questions and provides direction for one's life. Well, that's a wrap for this episode. Thank you so much for listening. Once again. Please remember to tell you like-minded friends about the cunning of guys. Podcast helps spread the word, share links to this podcast on your social media. And remember you can follow. The podcast Facebook page at cunning of guys where I post commentary in between episodes and engaging good discussion with many listeners there. You can also follow me at Twitter at Cunningham Geist. References will be provided shortly in the podcast. Facebook page. And I will be eventually posting a transcript of this episode. There. Thanks again for your support. This is Gregory Nowak. This is the cunning of Geist. See you next time.