![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png)
![[livejournal.com profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/external/lj-userinfo.gif)
What I'm going to do midweek (I'm shooting for Tuesday or Wednesday) is to start posting what Kuhn has said paradigms are ("paradigm" in the sense of an "exemplar" or a "model"). One reason I urge you to think and comment before then is that what he's doing seems to cover more territory than he says it does, so I want you to have your own opinions about what he's doing before telling you his and mine.
Questions to hold in the back of your mind while reading:
(1) Kuhn believed he was taking care of something by using the concept of "paradigm," something that the concepts then current in philosophy of science and history of science mostly weren't able to handle. What did he think he was trying to take care of? (Again, I'm speaking here of "paradigm" in its narrow sense, as "exemplar" or "model," though obviously Kuhn was also trying to take care of something when he broadened the notion to mean a whole "disciplinary matrix.") What did he think was at stake?
(2) What do you think he was trying to take care of (which may or may match up with what he explicitly seems to be trying to take care of)?
(3) What, if anything, do you think is at stake for you in the notion of paradigm?
Other koganbot threads with new comments in the last five days or so:
Another Year In America February 12, 2009 ("expanding the archetypal blissed out R&B slow jam into a feast of intergalactic largesse")
Another Year In America February 5, 2009 ("death metal in his strangulations")
Die Tarper, or Tire Rims And Anthrax ("the war of public relations can be won by the insane folk")