Back to Table of Contents
‘ Definition in terms of the paradigm : Germane is Thomas Kuhn ’s (2000) statement that a new paradigm is established when the previous one can no longer explain the phenomena under study. He explains that insofar as a paradigm fails to explain a particular phenomenon, a crack opens through which another explanatory form seeps in—a patch—into the prevailing paradigm. As these patches accumulate, they eventually establish a new paradigm that competes with the previous one for validation (Kuhn, 2000). Complex numbers, nonlinear equations, quantum physics, and the ineffable and complex object of study of psychoanalysis—the unconscious—have all signaled the need for a new way of considering these phenomena. In “The Structure of Scientific Revolution” (Kuhn 1962/1970) and in “The Road since Structure” (Kuhn, 2000a, b), Kuhn develops and corrects his own views on what a "paradigm" is and how the replacement of an old one by a new one occurs. He describes is initial bewilderment on reading the scientific work of Aristotle was a formative experience, followed as it was by a sudden ability to understand Aristotle properly, undistorted by knowledge of subsequent science. He draws attention to the fact that “being inside the paradigm” is essential in order to perceive the coherence of discourses, commenting on how he found Aristotle to be “not only ignorant of mechanics, but a terribly poor physicist” (p. 26) until he realized that when Aristotle spoke of “movement,” he was referring to “change,” and continues: “suddenly the fragments in my head were rearranged in a new way and all fell into place. I was stunned, because suddenly Aristotle seemed to me to be a very good physicist, but of a kind I had never imagined” (Kuhn 2000b, p. 27). This underscores the fundamental issue of the standpoint from which one speaks , since words are polysemic and some only acquire meaning within a specific context. For example, when looking at a glass, if one says that the brain functions by producing a representation of the external world, one is formulating a hypothesis based on what one believes and observes. This statement only makes sense if one assumes that there is an external world that one can ‘represent’ internally—a notion consistent with the Cartesian Paradigm. However, given that neuroscientists have demonstrated that there is no ‘glass’ inside one’s mind, but merely reverberating circuits of neuronal activity, one should seek a different explanation. As to how one ‘sees’ an image, the current metaphor of vision as if it were a photographic camera is not an accurate description of what is happening in the organism: The image projected onto the retina begins to be processed there itself in the form of nerve impulses directed toward the brain; however, only a portion of the nerve fibers exiting the retina reach the posterior part of the brain, where they are perceived as an image. A large part goes to the frontal cortex and other automatic reaction centers, which makes it possible, to jump aside before an object hits one —without even being consciously aware of the threat, an awareness that only occurs a posteriori. Furthermore, a significant number of nerve fibers that reach the occipital region come from the frontal cortex. This arrangement implies that there is more than just an image in front of one’s eyes: there is neural processing of impulses coming not only from the retina, but also from the cortex and other internal nuclei, so that one can only see what one has learned to see throughout development, from birth.
749
Made with FlippingBook - professional solution for displaying marketing and sales documents online