Kuhnian Theory on Paradigm Shifts - Its consquences for Marx

[cullinane]

Thomas Kuhn, an American scientist and sociologist, pointed out that scientific history consists of a series of paradigms, each incommensurable with its predecessor, with periodic revolutions where one paradigm replaces another.
Kuhn points out that science is not a steady, cumulative acquisition of knowledge. Instead science is "a series of peaceful interludes punctuated by intellectually violent revolutions". These revolutions are "tradition shattering" as "one conceptual world view is replaced by another".
When a paradigm shift takes place, "a scientists world is qualitatively transformed (and) quantitively enriched by fundamental novelties of either fact or theory".

Crises lead to paradigm shifts - the heliocentric astronomy of Copernicus could not give better orbital predictions than Ptolemeios. What was needed to make it a success was a crisis within the world view. Ptolemeian astronomy step by step becomes more complicated by the addition of laws for the movement of celestial bodies. After a while it became obvious that they were not on the right track and the search for alternatives was on.
According to Kuhn this is typical developemt. Paradigm shifts seldom occur as soon as a new paradigm is created, but only when the old one is shown to be inadequate. Then a total reevalutation/revolution is needed.

This seems to back up Marxist theory of the dialectic and the "revolutionary leap". Every epoch has its own contradictions. Within each epoch the contradictions become more acute until they become unresolvable. They emerge as directly antagonistic and non-negotiable claims. Therefore a moment of revolutionary transition occurs. The nodal or breaking point at which society (as with all natural phenomenon) undergoes a qualitative change. A break in continuity...the revolutionary leap.
Regards,

[Freiheit]

a scientist revolution is not really compareable with
a political revolution. also this quote are just single,
there is no connection between the single quotes.

biology has nothing to do with politics, there is no connection.
you always have to look why someone says something.
this man talks about sience not politics.

[ncalex]

i think what culinane means frieheit, is the scientific socialism of the laws of dialectical materialism..he's not talking specifically about politics, but actual scientific laws of dialectics and the unity of opposites. and hes shown the connection in the progress of scientific laws by kuhn and marx's laws of dialectics

[Freiheit]

you mean:
kuhn talkes about sience, and indirect he talks like marx?

that coincidence.

[vox]

N.A. Cullinane,

Are you talking about Althusser's notion of an epistemological break in Marx's work? Your post reminded me of the changing problematic.

vox

[cullinane]

Hello vox,
I wasn't directly refering to Althusser's epistemological break in Marx's work, but you've brilliantly brought it to my attention!
My main reference was Marx's scientific theory on the historical development of society (rather than the development of Marx's own thought). I was particularly refering to the nodal point between the social productive forces and the relations of production...the development of a new society within the womb of the current society..the dialectical notion of the thesis - antithesis-synthesis.

To be quite honest, I'm not entirely convinced of Althusser's thesis of a break in Marx's work with Capital.
Althusser is in error to cleanse Marxism of humanism and divide his thought into an early humanistic or 'ideological' period and a later scientific phase that culminated in the writing of Capital.
However I would have alot of sympathies of Althusser's idea of developments in science do not emerge from gradual, piecemeal change, but are instead the result of sudden dislocations in knowledge where the entire framework of a theory is replaced.
As far as I'm concerned Marx's "scientific period" doesn't particularly begin with Capital. I think it occured more within the Theses of Feuerbach, The Poverty of Philosophy and 1844 manuscripts..all written in the 1840s. Thus the idea of a hiatus between Hegelian-Feurbachian Marx and a scientific Marx can't be as easily distinguished as Althusser believes.

[DEFMARX]

Kuhn’s book, the Structure of Scientific Revolutions, is a decisive refutation of theories that portray science as a purely rational, objective activity. Kuhn shows that science, like all human services, is influenced by values, subjectivity, and contingent historical factors. In saying this, he in no way diminishes the truth, value, or rationality of science, however. What he does refute is the crude fairy tale picture of science held by many of its supporters. Scientific inquiry remains our best way to find out the truth about the world.
The error I see in comparing Kuhn with Marx is the fact that science is completely unknown to us. Science is about discovery and learning the unknown. Marx's thought was scientific, yes, but I believe more importantly his thought was ethically driven as well. The theories supporting socialism are about the bettering of society. It is about the realization of humanity's true nature.
I believe that many Marxists belive in the notion of Plato's forms. There is an idea and essence of things like justice and piety and the good. These things are discovered through contemplation, philosophical discussion, and by the use of logic. Through these methods we arrive at the ideal society for humanity, which is exactly the driving motivation behind every Marxist.
Therefore, to say that Marx's theories are subject to the same pardigm shifts that Kuhn proves the sciences are is inaccutrate. We cannot simply logically philosophize the physical laws of nature. They must be discovered through trial and error. That is what results in the behavior Kuhn refers to . The forms of justice never change, and can only be discovered through contemplation.

[redstar2000]

I agree with cullinane's original post, though, for the life of me, I can't understand why Hegalian terminology has to be cut and pasted onto what is, after all, a simple and verifiable observation...except that "Marxists" are supposed to pay ritual homage to "dialectics" on every conceivable occasion.

It seems reasonable to me that the "young Marx" (like, perhaps, all young Marxists) was strongly influenced by abstract ideas of justice...as are many young people who never become Marxists or ever even hear of him. The real measure of Marx, in my view, was in his ability to focus his intellect on the nature of class societies and how they evolve.

A youthful passion for justice is a wonderful first step...but to understand the material roots of injustice is infinitely greater.

:cool:

(Edited by redstar2000 at 9:31 am on Mar. 11, 2003)