RE: [xmca] Units of Scientiic Achievement

These files are maintained strictly for historical reference, research, and recordkeeping purposes,
and the content has not been altered or updated since archiving.
Content on this site may not meet current digital accessibility standards.
If you require an alternative, accessible format of any information found on this site,
please contact Bruce Jones, bjones@ucsd.edu to request an accommodation.

Punctuated evolution exactly Andy, a theory promoted by Stephen Jay Gould and Niles Eldridge. Actually I think they called it punctuated equilibrium because they wanted to differentiate it from Ernst Mayr. There's also something similar in physics I think - called something like ubiquitous information and the idea that a number of seemingly random physical events come together at a specific time to cause a complete change, different from chaos theory I think (probably way off her) because they are not talking about the development of actual systems but the interrelationships of pieces of information leading to a cause of, well, revolutionary change. Philosophy of science, biological/geological theory, physics, I wonder where else this idea is floating around. And I wonder if it can be applied to human development. Michael ________________________________ From: xmca-bounces@weber.ucsd.edu on behalf of Andy Blunden Sent: Mon 6/20/2011 10:33 AM To: eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity Subject: Re: [xmca] Units of Scientiic Achievement But the metaphor Michael is calling on, Carol, as I see it is "normal science" is the incremental, gradual adaptation of a species to its niche, and remaining much the same for millions of years, and on the other hand, when a species is under real pressure, you get exactly the process Kuhn describes in science: rapid diversification and die-outs, with a distinctly new species species emerging at the end. It's called "punctuated evolutuion" isn't it? I find the idea of a formation perfecting itself into extinction attractive. As to "Intelligent design" - this has nothing to do with proof or disproof, Carol, but Faith. Andy Carol Macdonald wrote: > Yep, evolutionery theory actually runs counter to "normal" science, but what > would it take to *disprove* it? I can't imagine. Intelligent design has > something of the same problem--you would have to disprove the existence of > God in order to disprove it. > Carol > > On 20 June 2011 15:43, Michael Glassman <MGlassman@ehe.osu.edu> wrote: > > >> I think Kuhn's idea of revolution as defining movement between paradigms >> comes not from speed but from the idea that change is not adaptive nor >> necessarily progressive, but is instead based on the failure of the dominant >> paradigm to solve crucial problems (hence problem solving at the unit of >> analysis). As a matter of fact my reading is that within Kuhn's framework >> of change the idea of evolution actually works against change. This is >> because those who are most wedded to the paradigm will continuously make the >> argument that the paradigm itself is evolving and should not be abandoned. >> They will always make the argument just one more experiment, just one more >> twist or turn to the theory and the paradigm is right back on course. >> Change though means a complete break, a giving up on the idea that a >> paradigm can actually adapt, and there is a revolution in thinking. >> >> Michael >> >> ________________________________ >> >> From: xmca-bounces@weber.ucsd.edu on behalf of Andy Blunden >> Sent: Mon 6/20/2011 9:33 AM >> To: Carol Macdonald >> Cc: eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity >> Subject: Re: [xmca] Units of Scientiic Achievement >> >> >> Well, the literature on that book would probably fill a library so I ought >> to limit myself. >> >> I don't know where the idea of "no revolutions" comes from, but I would >> have thought that the idea that the dominant paradigm being gradually eroded >> in the very process of working itself out is pretty suggestive. Maybe the >> fall of Apartheid didn't live up to the image of a revolution either? >> Anyway, I think there are a lot of parallels with both Vygotsky and Hegel, >> so long as one remains within the confines of a closed scientific community. >> The main thing I was struck by was Kuhn's notion of concepts as problem >> solution. >> >> Vygotsky said it many times, but for example from "The development of >> thinking and concept formation in the adolescent" in the Vygotsky Reader: >> "only during the course of some intelligent activity directed toward the >> attainment of a specific goal or the solution of a particular problem, can a >> concept come into being and take form." Or this paragraph: >> >> >> >> "In contrast to the process of maturation of instincts and inborn >> drives, the impelling force which determines the start of any process or >> initiates any evolving mechanism of behaviour and propels it forward along >> the path of further development, is not to be found inside, but outside the >> adolescent and, in this sense, the problems thrown up in front of the >> maturing adolescent by the society around him, which are connected with the >> process of growing into the cultural, professional and social life of >> adults, are extremely important functional aspects which continually depend >> on the reciprocal conditionality and the organic coherence and internal >> unity of form and content in the development of thinking." >> >> When you say "the cell concept of the concept is there all the time," I >> presume you mean the paradigm which is generating the problem-solving >> activity? Yes, until it falls into crisis. So you have an ideal, which first >> arose as a solution to a total crisis, and then sets up a new project to >> establish itself and solve its own problems. And thus all the subordinate >> concepts, its "special principles" (to use Hegel's phrase) appear in the >> form of problems needing to be solved. But the solution or not of every >> problem ricochets back on the "cell" as you call it. >> >> Does that make sense? >> Andy >> >> Carol Macdonald wrote: >> >> It's me, who never has the reference to hand, but apparently, there >> aren't actual revolutions, the dominant paradigm gets gets eroded and >> eroded over time. >> >> And yes, I can see the unit as the developed concept--but aren't we >> going to have to describe what happens as this thing is developing? So I >> don't think it is totally compelling. Of course I may be missing something, >> and the cell concept of the concept is there all the time? What do you >> think, Andy? >> >> Carol >> >> >> >> >> On 20 June 2011 12:11, Andy Blunden <ablunden@mira.net> wrote: >> >> >> I have just re-read Kuhn's "Structure of Scientific >> Revolutions" after many years. As is often the case with a classic like >> this, it proved to be a lot more nuanced than its reception (or my memory of >> it). >> One of the lines which struck me was this: "the unit of >> scientific achievement is the solved problem." (p. 169) >> In the context of Vygotsky's writing on true concepts and >> the meaning he gives to "unit" this is very profound. Reading Kuhn from >> Vygotsky I find very productive. >> >> Andy >> -- >> >> ------------------------------------------------------------------------ >> *Andy Blunden* >> Joint Editor MCA: >> http://www.informaworld.com/smpp/title~db=all~content=g932564744 >> Home Page: http://home.mira.net/~andy/ >> Book: http://www.brill.nl/default.aspx?partid=227&pid=34857 >> MIA: http://www.marxists.org <http://www.marxists.org/> <http://www.marxists.org/> >> >> __________________________________________ >> _____ >> xmca mailing list >> xmca@weber.ucsd.edu >> http://dss.ucsd.edu/mailman/listinfo/xmca >> >> >> >> >> >> -- >> >> Visiting Lecturer >> Wits School of Education >> Research Fellow >> Linguistics Dept: Unisa >> ----------------------------------------- >> HOME (please use these details) >> 6 Andover Road >> Westdene >> Johannesburg 2092 >> +27 (0)11 673 9265 +27 (0)82 562 1050 >> >> >> >> >> >> -- >> >> ________________________________ >> >> *Andy Blunden* >> Joint Editor MCA: >> http://www.informaworld.com/smpp/title~db=all~content=g932564744 >> Home Page: http://home.mira.net/~andy/ >> Book: http://www.brill.nl/default.aspx?partid=227&pid=34857 >> MIA: http://www.marxists.org <http://www.marxists.org/> <http://www.marxists.org/> >> >> >> __________________________________________ >> _____ >> xmca mailing list >> xmca@weber.ucsd.edu >> http://dss.ucsd.edu/mailman/listinfo/xmca >> >> >> > > > -- ------------------------------------------------------------------------ *Andy Blunden* Joint Editor MCA: http://www.informaworld.com/smpp/title~db=all~content=g932564744 Home Page: http://home.mira.net/~andy/ Book: http://www.brill.nl/default.aspx?partid=227&pid=34857 MIA: http://www.marxists.org <http://www.marxists.org/> __________________________________________ _____ xmca mailing list xmca@weber.ucsd.edu http://dss.ucsd.edu/mailman/listinfo/xmca