Popper: One Reality (Intelligent Design)
Kuhn: Many Paradigms (Effective Behavior)
new perspective of Popper Kuhn Debate / intelligent design vs evolution / TRUTH vs truths
My philosophy is that there is room for all philosophies on the station.
Captain Benjamin Sisko in Star Trek : Deep Space 9
Comparing Popper and Kuhn is not that easy because especially Karl Popper was a master
in making wise statements that did not clarify his conceptual model.
In fact Popper denied the existence of essentially different conceptual schemes.
The terms 'normal' science and 'historical truth' show the differences in the approaches of Karl Popper and Thomas Kuhn.
Popper believed in the existence of 1 gradually growing continuous normal science that has to be cultivated, and in absolute 'good and wrong' (dualism).
Practically all people live in only 1 reality, their cultural reality. Without ever trying to manipulate this dictated perception of reality.
From the safety of their own cultural reality they attack other cultural realities with wars on terrorism.
The western notion 'thinking' points at part of western cultural reality. To western people 'thinking' seems a real activity,
and more than only the cultural tool 'juggling with cultural memory'.They 'think' to be better in 'thinking' than other cultures.
The result of using the western tool 'thinking' is 'rational' ordering of cultural memory, and called knowledge
Present 'knowledge' can be seen as speed of finding in cultural memory the skills to survive Western conflict-environment.
Cultural change can from within Western culture be experienced as very fast,
but (if those skills are filtered away) be observed as standstill in parallel cultures.
Inside the western 'cultural beehive' life is ffffassst, but observers outside notice not much change,
when they filter away the hectic so called 'intelligent' behavior (dropping atom bombs, economical wars, war on terrorism, economical crisis, ..
Einstein would agree: knowledge is relative to the paradigm/culture of the observer.
The young Thomas Kuhn
was a brilliant student of theoretical physics AND curious.
Young Kuhn stumbled
on a way out of the ffasst but paralized western subreality around the dual concept 'intelligence'.
(And indirectly also away from the concept 'intelligent design'
A 25 ages old Aristotelian concept (invention of an ancient Greek wizard in the hellenic warrior world
revived by Catholicism, and anyway in the meantime part of Western Cultural Reality.
While student Kuhn studied Aristotle's works deep enough to realize in a flash that
Aristotelian 'motion' is uncomparable with the 20th century notion motion.
The word 'motion' used in Aristotelian way points to something like our present concept 'change'.
Aristotle's work is about life in general in all its aspects, and not 'unintelligent' or 'bad' physics. Two culturally dependent conceptual models.
Kuhn suddenly realized that our western concept 'intelligence' is not only arrogant but totally cultural, and can be seen as 'religious'.
Popper's 20th century cultural 'ratio' decides who is culturally accepted (those in power
) who 'falsify' the truth of those who are not accepted (those whose cultural truth is seen as false, and who act as 'terrorist' mutations eating away the Western World
Popper rejected Intelligent Design, but his belief in 'ratio' and a continuously improving science is not that different
Just like in Buddhism
I take the point that individual skill and 'family behavior' (family ethics) need to be in balance.
I greatly admire the results in many fields of western science, but western expertise expert knowledge only explores 1 direction (depth) and drowns in complexity of its own 'intelligence'.
Wisdom varies position regularly, to review sense experience from a completely different 'angle'.
You can only be generally WRONG, if truth is absolute. The western type of 'knowledge' is cultural, it's dominance is fading.
Common knowledge, ... having huge consequences.
Helas as professor Kuhn was not that curious anymore (out of deep frustration about being completely misinterpreted
) and certainly not on a mountain path leaving the highway 'ratio'.
But as student Kuhn made a super-sharp observation. Kuhn's notion paradigm is brilliant.
observed that Karl Popper
stays totally consistent within
the 'rational' Paradigm . Like 'rationally observing' out of an airplane, seeing dying Africans or South American Red Indians on the ground, and 'thinking' Brute Emotions are Non-Science.
Complaining about hunger is pseudo-science
. Probably Popper would have judged War on Terror as
'scientific war approach' versus 'war approach of non-science' (henk Tuten: terrorism as 'not rational').
Popper's view is that science proceeds by learning from mistakes, but what is a mistake? (are cultural mistakes recognized).
If learning only uses own cultural concepts, than learning will never result in recognizing cultural mistakes.
If when losing a war on terror you only learn that you need more drones and eavesdropdevices,
then you missed the point that this terror might point at a serious flaw in your own culture.
What about 'non-science' followed by whole cultures? 'Law and Order'
is a result of accepting THE Truth of only 1 (and western human made) conceptual scheme
Life is variation of the Supersense Brain of perceptions found in Sense Archive
|Falling asleep softly, or be shocked awake brutally. Life is a not a dream, but continuous fighting.
|The Popper-Kuhn debate refers to a meeting that took place at the
former Bedford College, University of London in 13 July 1965.
A meeting of a just arrived genial theorist of science (Kuhn, 43) with a remarkable selfmade 'leaving'
theorist of science (Popper, 63). Thomas Kuhn had by thorough comparing discovered that the ancient physics of someone like Plato was not WRONG in Newtonian view, but a totally different knowledge space (different logic in a different language). He developed the concept of paradigms (knowledge worlds).
|The conceptual schemes of Popper and Kuhn are perfect examples of colliding views. In this case Poppers conceptual scheme fits in Kuhn's view,
but Thomas Kuhn makes no sense to Karl Popper.
The 'debate' organizers Imre Lakatos and his most fanatical fan Feyerabend failed in presence and in writing.
Kuhn missed his chance, and the aimed for frontal collision between 2 essentially different parallel views on science (paradigms without compromise) became a polite non-happening.
Popper defended the fantasy 'understanding' and Kuhn saw manipulating
knowledge as puzzling in the inherent conceptual scheme
of a culture.
Inherently Thomas Kuhn denied 'understanding' being more than systemized intuition.
No fierce intellectual fight, resulting in a scientific revolution.
Henk Tuten, I read on internet:Popper was more knowledgeable than Kuhn about the nature, prevalence, and power of ideology
Henk Tuten: It is more relative to say: Popper was more addicted than the young Kuhn to the conceptual scheme 'rationalism'.
The next 35 years Popper would be still in the lead. Leaving 2 happy scientists talking parallel, and 2 bitterly opposing camps of millions of fans.
The 2 camps are not comparing basics, but trying to prove that 'apples' taste better than 'pears' or vice versa
|That looks like Democracy (the rational view of Justice)
Popper ideology and Kuhn ideology
In his 'Popper Ideology' Popper
tried to find out why some consistent ideologies never become part of 'normal' science'.
Because ideology 3 = "The world is square" is consistent with ideology 1 = "the world is flat". Popper beliefs in 'normality', in fact he sees 'rationality' as Law of Nature.
Popper sees semicontinuous replacement of scientific theories as the main engine of scientific growth.
Kuhn in his 'Kuhn ideology' was interested in the historical process by which some ideologies become science.
Kuhn saw the inevitablity for outbreaks out of addictive "puzzling".
Galileo's Ideology = "Round World" was heavily needed to remove the paradoxes of the old ideology = "the world is flat".
I feel that both believed science.
to serve progress. Popper inherently stressed controlled progress as goal of science, and that's why he focused on preventing 'anormal' = 'wrong' changes. Kuhn did not think in moralistic terms that imply ethics being absolute. He denies the absolute use of the words 'right' and 'wrong' and stressed the inevitability of 'change'.
|Kuhn did not consider 'science' itself as paradigm (he must have known better),
and thus introduced 'Kuhnian Paradigms' or scientific revolutions INSIDE 'science'.
Trying to definitely stop avalanches is similar to suicide. 9 out of 10 may be blocked, and the 10th 'rolling thunder' clears the way.
Even in the case of 999 out of 1000 evolution proves patient. 'Nature' obviously
doesn't behave 'rational' . That's why Kuhn was primarily interested the unmistakebly relative logical force behind such inevitable change. For him volcanoes must have been
just part of the by him studied process 'scientific change'. Kuhn
focused on science but surely realized that he also entered the domain of 'sociology'.
The terms 'normal' science and 'historical truth' show the differences in the approaches of Karl Popper and Thomas Kuhn.
Popper believed in the existence of 1 gradually growing continuous normal science that has to be cultivated, and in absolute 'good and wrong' (dualism).
This dualism is what makes American leaders
think that American Culture is superior and that they should export own puritan ethics (democracy and freedom of speech);
Kuhn thought science to be relative (no general good and wrong) and to change in jumps.
But in essence, its the difference between a 'rational' (continuous=absolute) view on happenings on the world, and a discrete (relative). Or thinking that progress can be totally explained by detailling
(critical rationalism as basic truth) , or believing that important progress is made in jumps [deep plowing = drastically different conceptual scheme] to reach a different paradigm.
Kuhn has deep respect for gardening (normal science) but also like Friedrich Nietzsche believes that every autumn (when the garden dies = in recession) the garden needs thorough plowing. You can understand that gardeners have
difficulty to allow a plow in their refined artestry. Nietzsche was seen as a devil in 'rational' paradise.
Popper follows Darwin and Descartes / Kuhn follows Nietzsche
showed that humans developed in tiny incremental steps out of apes. The tiny cartesian steps are still in the view that Karl Popper
is using around WWII ('tiptoe through the tulips'
around 1970 doesn't deny this part of progress, but adds that intelligence
is much more than
abstract thinking (like rationality).
once in a while makes/needs abrupt jumps in thought (total paradigm shifts
's kind of progress is based
on 'loving' patience and hard work, the jumps in thought are based on 'brutal' geniality. That geniality is not only rational, but can be based on usage of every sense. So Beethoven
was a genius in thundering through music, as well as Picasso
plowed brilliantly through painting.
focused on the logic reasoning part of intelligence, and recognized major partial paradigm shifts caused by people like
It's like attacking a wall with a extendable ladder, or just jumping over it. In essence it's the difference between
mathematical analysis and discrete mathematics. Most problems can be solved by extending existent views, but very few need a jump in thought. Or mostly compromise is
enough (politics), but sometimes taking decisions is needed (leadership).
Unluckily Kuhn's view was not broadly accepted.
The garden decorators (rational Thinkers), thinking in compromise (inherent in a dual view), had still too much power.
Looking at todays HUGE problems it is clear that abrupt change is needed.
Substituting fossile fuel for energy purposes with vegetative fuel only makes things worse.
The 'rational' way of attacking problem in controlled 'continuous' fashion has become way too dominant, costs are a poor argument to slow down change.
High time to leave the rigid thinking about transportation means like cars on wheels on asphalt/concrete and petrol slurping brute force airplanes, and to stop thinking
in minute unrisky changes.
If you are not going to grasp that the present shape of on individualism based democracy is strangling all other
then you risk unexpected death in a desert of record height skyscrapers of beautifully subtile design.
Popper about Kuhn: 'Normal' science, in Kuhn's sense, exists. [..] ... in my view the 'normal' scientist,
as Kuhn describes him, is a person one ought to be sorry for... He has been taught in a dogmatic spirit: he is a victim of indoctrination...
I can only say that I see a very great danger in it and in the possibility of its becoming normal... a danger to science and, indeed, to our civilization.
And this shows why I regard Kuhn's emphasis on the existence of this kind of science as so important.
Compromise is Rational
Relativism needs Absolute Views, this duo is a unity. But you cannot compromise. Compromising suggest continuity, but this is an abstract concept. In nature NOTHING is continuous.
Compromising using 'reason' is like sliding down a mountain, you always end at the bottom.
It is essential to realize that 'rational' analysis is only a way to get NEAR to a goal.
AND under the assumption
|The ancient Greek Aristotle made 'reason' from 'just a tool' into 'natural law'.
With statement: The law is reason, free from passion
And made 'intuition' from invalueable 'tool of life' into inferior instinct used by animals.
Aristotle started the paradigm 'Western World'
that this goal is rational. It's
like an attempt to produce a siege without knowing that the wanted fugitive is in the house
Say you want to reach 1000 units of anything. Then you say something like: smaller than 999.999 is bad and anything between 999.999 and 1000.000 is good.
But what when you want to get close to an emotion as evoked by SEX. Then you'll find that a major part
of the reactions evoked by the action sex is NOT AT ALL rational.
Mathematical Analysis is great for engineering of products that must approach rational properties,
but VERY TRICKY in case of moods. Then it even is risky. It's not nearly enough in many cases when endlessly approaching a mood, without ever totally reaching it.
If for instance you want some 'worldpower' to change ethics, it is even totally counterproductive to
accept compromise. You have to make a discrete Yes-No DECISION.
Evolutionary young worldpowers with full voting right is ridiculous (even more veto right). First one should EARN full
The Rational notion equality and Western Democracy are myths.
In present western politics many solutions are based on compromise. But when you start thinking about that, this is DANGEROUS. Because that is approaching only the rational properties of a solution. Some moods
are not effected at all. And compromises evoke fear.
That some events cannot be simulated rationally is something that many engineers came to realize quite well. What they
generally don't realize enough though is that the rational decision process 'compromise' as used by politicians is rational engineering with moods.
There is much more than only Rationalism
Inherently relativists like Kuhn
say: "There is much more than only rationalism".
To say it very simple: In 'political' behavior rational thinking or compromising replaced taking risks in leadership.
After WWII Mathematical Analysis (method out of cartesian thinking) gradually became broadly used in Social Science
. Not only in Sociology but in many western countries compulsory for ANY university study. Starting in UK and US
In engineering rational thinking proved highly succesful. That's no surprise, it either caused or had been chosen for introducing Industrialism
, but there had been gradually accepted after proven worth). Eager to duplicate the results of engineering sciences without really thinking about it in social science
talent in using logic (math) was seen as showing intelligence.
The mathematician/philosopher Bertrand Russell
at that time already was too old to warn. But he would have approved that this was EXTREMELY tricky, because it meant substituting only 1 type of logic for ALL of skill.
But in philosophy overpowering sociology mathematicians were largely banned to their own profession.
The results proved disastrous, especially in all kind of government institutions (internationally in World Bank, IMF etc.) and politics.
The Roman Empire was replaced by the Catholic Empire. In turn this was relieved by the Rational Empire lead by the USA. And now stealthy develops a 'Management Empire'. No doubt it will be halted, but it helps to recognize the movement.
The developing Management Empire threatens to destroy 'roots and trees' in the ages old 'knowledge worlds' Agriculture and Craftsmanship. Exactly
like it destroys real roots and trees in life sustaining jungles all over the world.
And replaces areas full of creativity with almost empty rational subworlds. It's totally the same strategy
as used by the Catholic Empire. I.e. kill existing ethics (or creativity) and start building your own from scratch. That is arrogant and very inefficient, AND a step back in cultural ethics to the end of the Dark Middle Ages.
Two Camps: Intuition and 'Analysis' (reason), Practice and Fiction
Virtual discussion made into black and white standpoints
|Recent western theories of knowledge can be divided generally in two 'competing' camps
(paradigms)- the very slowly increasing relative view of the later Wittgenstein, Kuhn and others versus
the very slowly decreasing absolute view of the dominant paradigm. One important defender of modern absolutism is the elder Popper
(in fact without aiming for it the younger Popper had quite a few relative traits).
Both sides investigate the borders of rationalism (in fact Kuhn's tool 'paradigm shift' is the way for leaving this dream (system of thought) by getting awake in one flash of mind.
Karl Popper in his active adult life defended 'rationalism' in his own critical variant.
The elder Popper revives 'evolutionary epistomology' (evolutionary theory of knowledge or ideology), and researches
knowledge under specific conditions. This approach to knowledge was quite
popular in the nineteenth century after Darwin's book on evolution. It only shows that not unusually on respectable age Popper tended to become conservative and prescriptive, quite different from his ideals
in former adult years.
The democratic liberalist Popper can't help that the Ideology of Darwin became mostly practiced in religious circles (the word taken in its meaning dogmatic).
That's certainly not to disqualify this group, but just an observation. Because everytime I searched for this difficult word
on Internet I ended up in sites about religious subjects. That may be coincidence but
the word this way seemed to me to attract people with a conservative, religious outlook on
the world ('religious' seen as god-believe in prescriptive sense).
That's probably why the fundamentalism in the doctrine rationalism inherent in the thoughts of the elder Popper
became common practice in this corner of society that defends acquired power.
Overhere I found a system of thought (nightmare) that in my view in many
ways still resembles the one in early Enlightenment, i.e. characterized by things like 'absolutism', strong god-believe (often in a dogmatic sense), conservative liberalism. Fascinating, but it triggered in me an uncomfortable feeling (most feelings in rationalism became marginal in circles of power). Worrying because
I found much more power-arguments here, then real debating arguments.
Evolution is purely triggered by chance + selection, but if things locally get really out of hand, then something like an ice age erases all mistakes.
Although both scientists seem reasonable to me, what came to be known as "The Popper-Kuhn debate" is loaded with in pure rationalist thought loathed emotions.
Many arguments used are clearly unproven, often anti 'inductivism' is mentioned.
I'll try to stay away from delicate statements.
In numbers Popper's standpoint is much more popular, scientists like rules to check things.
So better not use western 1 man - 1 vote democracy to make a 'rational' choice.
In quality Kuhn's standpoint survives.
The views of Popper and Kuhn contrasted on 1 point:
(1) The existence of universal/eternal natural laws ('rational' laws).
This is seen in Popper in 'science' in 'continuous' way 'rationally' defining/creating 'rational' laws, and 'rationally' testing against such self-invented laws.
And in Kuhn considering 'common sense life' to proceed with emotionally brute 'jumps' in 'variation'.
Differences and similarities; Compare and Contrast
Both rejected the possibility of 'unprejudiced' observation (theory-neutral observation or language-neutral observation)
ˇ Popper thought that 'crucial' experiments are the norm ('crucial' though seems to him identical to 'rational').
Popper sees a science becoming 'normal' as result of bad teaching and indoctrination. He thought criticism was sufficient. (Henk Tuten: Like Freedom of Speech).
Popper saw scientific growth was achieved through human problem solving (creationism), and smoothly (continuous) moving from one knowledge-set to another.
ˇ Popper saw evolution as the drive of development of THE logic behind knowledge.
Kuhn saw evolution randomly trying many systems of thought, and some way selecting.
Kuhn considered 'logics' as cultural designs for fixing cultural practices.
Kuhn saw 'evolutional' not as the human concept 'continuous, but discovered that variation result in jumps (paradigm shifts triggered by a very successful variant).
ˇ Popper in essence thought 'rational' in a modern way. For Kuhn rationality was only 1 of limitless dreams (a kuhnian paradigm or conceptual schemes).
ˇ Popper thought that testing theories realized 'change' .
Kuhn believed that in every dream its own basic rules are immune for testing (its own points of departure).
In Kuhn's terms, Popper hided within 1 kuhnian paradigm (rational science). Popper was fundamentally convinced
that rationality was THE logic for researching natural laws.
Still Popper believed to be revolutionary, he should have remembered that: there is no entity within a logic with the authority to define that logic.
Popper made an essential point (without realizing). 'Rationality' is a subtile tool to make the 'rational' variant of limitless reality consistent.
Without limiting basic assumption Mind-Body Split it might strengthen the evolutional 'logic' common sense.
Kuhn made a VERY essential point: 'rational' logic is not fit to research the basics of say Red Indian culture.
Red Indian behavior was seen as terrorism by early US colonists. Because this behavior follows rules outside 'rationality', that like Buddhism obey 'Unity of Body and Mind'.
Leadership without Fear .......................or......... Hesitating around Status Quo
|NO, a compromise between Karl Popper and Thomas Kuhn would be 'rational'. But both theories are part of the TOTAL of ways to handle the unity reality.
Closed-Circle Theory: Wisdom is relative (Kuhn)
Meanings, according to Wittgenstein, are formulated and stated in 'language games' (to be honest this idea is already found in the work of Nietzsche);. They consist of a set of rules that constitute closed circles of
meanings. Because there is no individual (general) language as such there are
no individual meanings, and because such systems are closed circles there is no
reference to anything outside the system (i.e., an objective
"world"). Only inside the circle there are objective meanings, thus
'the only truth' is your own dream (fundamentalists
trying to make a general dream are denied).
In Kuhn's masterwork "Scientific Revolutions" Wittgenstein's
closed-circle language worlds were turned into paradigms, and scientific revolutions seen as a shift from one paradigm to another. In
this view Einstein's physics does not partially extend Newton's
(showing something that was implicitly already there), doesn't reject it either, BUT adds something extra to it that was not in this scheme. Closed-circle
theory includes that there is more than only rationality.
Evolutionary Epistemology: Knowledge is Absolute (Popper)
Evolutionary epistemology studies knowledge under specific conditions. Only it presumes such
conditions are rational, and that all dreams are rational. In fact it resembles what technicians mention as a closed-loop system.
Not totally, because borders of rational cultures are slightly open, but near to it. As such it is more limited than Closed Circle Theory. They only see 1 closed circle or closed system, a rational one. Only such a game
is presumed to be objective. On top of that the game is supposed to be evolutionary.
The tendency in this camp is to see Closed-circle theorists as anti
evolutionists. But Wittgenstein and Kuhn are NOT denying evolution, only they see it as more than only rational and as A particuliar game of knowledge.
This shape of absolutism, is a modern version of Logical Positivism (Vienna circle)
Relative truths about Evolutionary Epistomology
- The belief that only purely conservative scientists are found in this camp.
Relative truths about Closed Circle Theory:
- People like Wittgenstein are thought to have looked at sociology and social psychology as basis for meaning. But both disciplines especially grew AFTER the period in which Wittgenstein was very active, so it would be more appropriate to see it vice versa
- The functionalism of Durkheim stimulated closed circle theory. This is rather far fetched. Statements like "a society without crime is impossible" don't breath the the atmosphere of realizing that within one closed circle ANY society is possible.
- The functionalism of Malinowski resembles Closed Circle Theory. Just studying 1 circle of knowledge is hardly any evidence. It only shows that he shared an attitude with Wittgenstein
- The sociology of knowledge stimulated Close Circle Theory. Although this might be true, then it's equally true that Wittgenstein's family stimulated his Close Circle Theory. It only created room for discussion of the nature of science.
These views are typically sociological, so they are relative truths in the closed circle world filled with scientists who believe in the 'religion' Sociology
Relative Truths (continued)
Relative truths about relativism:
- Relativism doesn't deny the existence of any god, only accepts them as being only gods
- Though both ways of thinking need each other there is an essential difference in approach between absolutism and relativism. That is their view on progress. A belief in continuity, tradition etc. versus a belief in change in jumps together with respecting any belief . Both sides in principle don't deny each other's existence, only stress a different side of things.
- Everyone is right versus no one is right. It's a common misconception that respecting a view is the same as accepting it. A relativist has no problem respecting the statement "God exists.", only realizes that there are many gods.
- There is no evil. Indeed that is right in relativist view. The concept good and Bad are religious inventions. But that is completely different from denying that any society needs rules. Calling autrocities evil is using the word evil to indicate something unaccepted.
Such concepts have to be respected, but NOT accepted. They are are born out of a thinking in
extremes like Black versus White or Good versus Bad. Only the abstract concept of a circular sphere is similar from all sides.
But debate is only waste of energy, it is more helpful to concentrate on the positive points of both relativism and absolutism.
Relative Truths (continued)
Relative truths about Popper-Kuhn debate
- It is a fantasy that there was any debate. Such fantasies are almost indistinguishable from being real. But historical records prove them wrong.Popper stressed continuity and Kuhn stressed discontinuity.
Neither of them denied what the other stressed. Kuhn as a physicist without any doubt realized the force of
continuity in science. In Kuhn's view different circles of knowledge not necessarily reject each other, not even partly.
They just ad something extra that before wasn't there. Popper just didn't realize that superficiously
similar world had needed a push to keep continuing. He only saw the continuous part, and didn't deny the vision of Kuhn, but
just didn't 'see' it.
The way to join the 'rational' dreams with not-rational dreams
Thus while knowledge to the closed-circle theorist is relative to paradigms, to the evolutionary epistemologist it is determined in its type.
The difference is smaller then it looks. 'Absolutists' accept the truth as is observed in their
own dream (at present some kind of rationalism). Truth may very well be stable and infinite
but every dream highlights a different part. Relativist therefore see truth as relative to the
way of thinking.
Contrary to what is sometimes supposed relativism is NOT Cartesian. In fact it attacks the inherent absolutism in rationalism.
Allthough 'rationalism' gave room for 'relativism', already Fredrich Nietzsche
pointed at serious flaws in the wide spread dream 'rationalism'. Wittgenstein showed
that rationalism was a closed circle of thought (in essence dogmatic). And finally Kuhn showed that this dream can be left with
just getting awake (a paradigm shift).
Philosophy and Religion
In essence the Popper-Kuhn-debate is about subtle shapes of stationary
knowledge or religion versus dynamical
knowledge. So it's really quite subtle,
because Karl Popper
certainly wasn't a common 'absolutist' but a quite reasonable person.
First let's therefore make the distinction between religion and belief.
The word 'religo' in Latin means 'to bind', that meaning speaks for itself.
My personal opinion is that 'religion' tends to 'absolutism', while beings need (relative) beliefs.
Or said in another way: "God hates religion", or "beliefs want to be free".
Every knowledge-system is based on such freedom loving beliefs. In themselves they wouldn't become 'religious' (used in the sense of dogmatic), but if their users do then they just follow.
Much more fulfilling colourfull and creative alternatives for religion (or dogmatism, determinism, absolutism, fundamentalism, objectivism) are in my opinion found in relative views.
Mind that there is nothing wrong with authoritarian knowledge, but it should be compensated (otherwise teachers become gods).
Giving an example of this proposition would be wrong, because not the view is important, but the way of viewing. That way of valuing things need not necessary secular, because secular beliefs can become very dogmatic (as proved in Stalinism).
Kuhn based himself on Wittgenstein, and Wittgenstein (possibly without knowing) on Nietzsche . I respect very much both Karl Popper and Thomas Kuhn, but both stressed very much one side of the coin.
Any learning phase turns out to be mainly authoritarian (strict democracy in education failed), but should be followed by using your own curiosity. That's what Nietzsche stressed with his 'Superman', he warned for 'religion ' but cherishes any free belief (even if he personally doesn't agree, but he admires fanatic (but reasonable) defending of own convictions).
Nietzsche is cited a lot in the common saying: In heaven all the interesting people are missing. He meant that absolute heavens tend to be dull. But relative heavens are first
seen as hell. In the following quote he showed what he meant: What is new, however, is always evil, being that which wants to conquer and overthrow the old boundary markers and the old pieties; and only what is old is good. The good men are in all ages those who dig the old thoughts, digging deep and getting them to bear fruit - the farmers of the spirit. But eventually all land is depleted, and the ploughshare of evil must come again and again.
from Nietzsche's The Gay Science, s.4, Walter Kaufmann transl.
It's like studying philosophy and thirsty for knowledge drinking the views of your professors (but hopefully mainly their methodology), and afterwards using the acquired knowledge to come to and defend your owns views. So studying is not about copying views of your teachers, but learning the means that are purposeful for you.
That's exactly what makes studying philosophy confusing. In most studies it is clear after ending that have you learned various methods, but in philosophy there is always the danger as well of being drowned in views. This is the 'religious' danger of philosophy, often without realizing you become 'being bound' by the views of some professor and learn to defend those.
Closed Circle of Knowledge explained
In a formal world one might say: "Killing terrorists without evidence is right".
We created special rules for it (laws).
In a more intuitive world one might say: "This is just damned wrong!".
And to impress people in formal worlds say something like: "More than two ages ago Prophet XXX when eating
rotten fish already declared on video: "All life is precious, even if it tastes rotten."
Formal people then answer: "Two ages ago there was no video".
In their view that observation might be essential, but it remains a mighty wise statement.
There are limitless worlds of knowledge, in fact every human has countless ones. Because there
is one in every knowledge dimension. It can be compared to force fields. But to get a physical
impression think of bubbles of soap.
Two different bubbles can collide and keep distance, but they might also merge into one bigger bubble. I call that a symplosion
(derived from the word 'symbiosis')
More and more people travel in different worlds of knowledge. In some aspects these world integrate without
is popular now in most cultures. But other aspects appear to be
more essential, in that case it takes change from BOTH circles of knowledge.
I showed that democracy
in the present shape even in the rational paradigms is suspect. Together with another other suspect concept capitalism
this seems responsible for enormous differences
in undergone social emotions.
|In other words: HIGH time in the Western World to stop hiding and revalue: democracy, capitalism, and intelligence as found in feelings.
Many communication problems on earth are in fact paradigm (culture) clashes. There's only one solution:
teaching the history of say the three major paradigms (Christianity, Islam and Buddhism) in a nutshell
in every paradigm. As well as their major paradigm shifts and major myths. This should be done
by someone still belonging to that paradigm.
Based on upgraded concepts and improved knowledge about each other communication between different cultures on earth will be much simpler.
's interesm in Buddhism could be seen as recognizing the far reaching effects of relativism in
Looking 5 minutes at television I saw one message about a group of pinguins being saved by being flown back by the
Brazilian army from one of their beaches to the South Pole. And I read about a kangaroo in Australity getting
a National Bravity Medal. That's fine, but it would be nice to if more attention was spent as well
on beings that are a lot closer to us. People living in different cultures.
There always will be change
A very positive conclusion of the virtual Popper-Kuhn-debate
Poverty is temporary
It is only temporary absolute, but like everything without any doubt relative
The Asian Tigre economies showed that rationality is A way to leave poverty.
Only I hope that they don't mistake Rationality for the Final Goal.
Fear is the path to the dark side. Fear leads to anger. Anger leads to hate. Hate leads to suffering.
|On this webpage I focused on the inherent debate between the thoughts of Popper and those of Kuhn
Another approach is looking where both methods reinforce each other. Here was not the right place to do that, but in
my article Truth, I follow this path.
Yoda in "Star Wars Episode I : Phantom Menace