 |
Popper Kuhn debate
THE Truth versus Sense of History
'Static' Falsification / Dynamic Relativism
THE Truth versus Sense of History
'Static' Falsification / Dynamic Relativism
'Scientific' 'gliding' vs Brutal 'leaps'
Convenient Individual Liberty vs Demanding Family Ties / Silently Strangling Absolutism vs Shocking Relativism
Passive Faith in War on Terrorism - Active Fight for Peace
Convenient Individual Liberty vs Demanding Family Ties / Silently Strangling Absolutism vs Shocking Relativism
Passive Faith in War on Terrorism - Active Fight for Peace
My philosophy is that there is room for all philosophies on the station.
Captain Benjamin Sisko in Star Trek : Deep Space 9
I'll try to explain the strong/weak points of individualism and collectivism.
Or Aristotelianism and Buddhism, rationality and common sense.
Just like in Buddhism I take the point that individual skill and collective ethics need to be in balance.
I greatly admire medical progress, but like Albert Einstein I'll defend that ANY speed is relative the observer, also
'knowledge speed' (acceleration of departing common sense). Common knowledge, ... but having huge cultural consequences. The notion knowledge in one way resembles the notion 'speed'. Like Einstein showed speed is locally absolute, but relative to the speed of the standpoint (kuhnian paradigm) of the standpoint of the observer.
Some Standpoints.
Thomas Kuhn observed that Karl Popper peeps totally consistent out of a window in The 'rational' Paradigm . Like 'rationally theorizing' in an airplane, seeing dying Africans or South American Red Indians on the ground, and 'thinking' Brute Emotions are without Smooth Scientific value. Complaining about hunger is pseudo-science (Zarah2nd: not 'rational'). That's how Popper's 'rational' decision-process falsification 'judges' Non-Western common sense.
Popper started daydreaming in cosmopolitan Vienna as one of the 'bugs' brilliantly described by Franz Kafka. After 1814 (Congress of Vienna: defeat of Napoleon) this town had become a European capital. Popper was 'bugged' by the imported abstract rational thought'.
Abstract truth drugs people into common sense denying zombies, as in South-Africa during Apartheid. But a prophet like Mandela was able with a minor paradigm shift to shock the zombies into sense.
Moving Bubbles
Three expanding 'stains' on a globe inevitably start overlapping. That even might be explosive.
Cultural knowledges left from 1 'chimney' as moving bubbles with different velocities and accelerations in different directions . That 'chimney' was common sense.
Now these 3 brilliant variants will unite, offering their discoveries to the 'family', and together will overcome individual weaknesses.
Things get MUCH more difficult meeting beings from other planets in space who started from very different 'common sense'. And then we don't have 2000 years for trial and error. On the 'dead' planet Mars (opinion NASA) life might already be infected.
A 'Fairy Tale'
The 3 major earth-cultures are kingdoms of sent out 'nephews' (prophets) of VERY WISE king 'Abraham' (nickname 'Common Sense') somewhere in Central Asia.Cultural Bubble1 of nephew Zoroaster triggered Zoroastrianism and influenced Buddhism, and its knowledge = common sense + ZararathustraSpeed. The cultural Bubble2 of nephew Buddha extended common sense in direction Buddhism, and its knowledge = old common sense + BuddhaSpeed. Bubble3 triggered by youngest nephew Jesus was transformed in Catholicism and became abstract 'Aristotelian', with knowledge = common sense + Catholic-knowledge-speed Catholicism (and Muslim copy Muhammedanism) is Aristotelian (worship illusions called 'angels'='spirits'). Cultures 1, 2 and 3 started mixing, although 'angels' are not a part of common sense. A fresh prophet Zarah2nd in a Total Paradigm Shift 'blows away' the immaterial 'angels as HUGE obstacle for joining the 3 similar kingdoms. |
Life is Puzzling by Supersense Brain assisted by Sense Archive
| Falling asleep softly, or be shocked awake brutally. Life is a not a dream, but continuous fighting. |
The Popper-Kuhn debate in effect refers to an encounter that took place at the
former Bedford College, University of London on 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 '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 with the (mood, reaction) pairs caused by reality within the ethics of a culture. Inherently Thomas Kuhn denied understanding being more than very complex intuition. Instead of a fierce intellectual fight, resulting in a scientific revolution. 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
|
I'll use the following steps:0. Popper ideology and Kuhn ideology
1. Popper follows Darwin and Descartes / Kuhn follows Nietzsche
2. Compromise is Rational
3. There is much more than only Rationalism
4. Extending or Jumping in Thought
5. Two camps: The Creative Power Changers and the Cautious Power Owners
6. Virtual discussion made into black and white standpoints
7. Jumping without Fear or Cautious Shuffling around Status Quo
8. Relative Truths
9. Philosophy and Religion
10. Free Creativity
11. Buddhism and Knowledge
12. Closed Circle Theory explained
13. Relativity and Relativism
14. High Time
15. There will always be change
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 think 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'.
| Only Kuhn for some reason did not consider 'science' itself as paradigm, 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 their approaches.
Popper believed in the existence of 1 gradually growing continuous normal science that has to be cultivated, and in absolute 'good and wrong' (a dual view).
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
Darwin 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'). Thomas Kuhn around 1970 doesn't deny this part of progress, but adds that intelligence is much more than abstract thinking (like rationality). Creativity once in a while makes/needs abrupt jumps in thought (total paradigm shifts). Darwin and Popper'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. Kuhn focused on the logic reasoning part of intelligence, and recognized major partial paradigm shifts caused by people like Galilei and Einstein.
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. |
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).
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 decision shapes, then you risk unexpected death in a desert of record height skyscrapers of beautifully subtile design.
It is accepting that not all 'pigs' are equal (Orwell, "Animal Farm") but that some pigs indeed have bigger survival talents. Even without majority in votes these make them more suited to take the lead when confonted with essential problems. NOT for acquiring more wealth or power, but for helping the herd out of trouble. That also is a side of democracy.
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 is like sliding down a mountain, you always end at the bottom.| 1 example: When the US president suggests that protestant churches should have freedom of speech in Buddhist China,
THEN that is like proposing to tolerate cancer cells. 0. The Buddhist unwritten basic says: Respect all Life. 2. The second Noble Truth Samudaya inherently states: Egoism doesn't pay. While the protestant godfather Martin Luther introduced individualism or egoism! Compromising has no end, protestantism threatens Buddhist ethics, it is straightforward use of Buddhist ethics to quarantine protestantism. Before thinking about a definition for terrorism the Western Top of the United Nations should better realize such simple basics. |
It is essential to realize that mathematical analysis is only a way to get NEAR to a goal.
AND under the assumption 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 voting right.
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 mathematics (on general level mostly mathematical analysis) became 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 intelligence. 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.
Extending or Jumping in Thought
As the picture in the intro shows both sides of the puzzle need each other to get attention. Strangely enough neither Popper nor Kuhn saw a controversy. But their thoughts were used as 'oil on the fire' in the suffocating fight between 'Enlightened Absolutism' and 'Relativism'.
Two Camps: Common Sense and 'Analysis' (reason), Practice and Fiction
| 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. |
Virtual discussion made into black and white standpoints
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.
Popper and Kuhn only essentially disagreed 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'.
ˇ Both rejected the possibility of a theory-neutral observation language, the idea that observation without concept is possible
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. (Zarah2nd: 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 (systems of thought).
ˇ Popper thought that testing theories realized 'change' .
Kuhn believed that in every dream (system of thought) its own basic rules are immune for testing (its own points of departure). In Kuhn's terms, Popper hided within 1 paradigm (the rational religion). 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'.
| 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. |
Leadership without Fear or Hesitating around Status Quo
|
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
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 dream with other rationally weird 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-controversy 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).
Free Creativity
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 creativity. 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.
Buddhism and knowledge
I don't want to start a discussion, but in main form of Buddhism I notice familiar thoughts. Like the statement in the Vijnana: "All scientific knowledge is relative" and "Absolute Knowledge and Relative Knowledge together constitute the supreme knowledge."; "Knowledge of Relative Being is Physical Science."
Buddhism claims: Knowledge supposes a subject that knows and and one that is known. Its classical philosopher Vatsyayana aptly remarks: " One is a cogniser only in relation to what is cognised"
Buddhism in general denies the existence of any permanent entity (like a spirit) that does the 'knowing'
| Christian rationalism proved perfect for technology. Buddhist relative ethics in the first 3 of the 4 noble truths is superior to Christian ethics in the 10 commandments. In fact it is based on the much older and much more complex logic 'common sense' used by both Gautama Buddha and Jesus. Outside science most people are still using this 'logic'. See Buddhism and Christianity. |
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 problem. Madonna 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.
Relativity and Relativism
In physics Einstein made accepted that in 2 worlds with known speed difference close to lightspeed the measurement of the concept speed differs also significantly. This has little value on earth, but in space is very important.
He showed in physics that although speed is a constant, that measurements of very high speeds depend on the relative angle. Or that there is no useful correction for this phenomenon, the constant speed rightfully is observed as different in every paradigm. Constant only means having always the same value within the same paradigm.
Such huge differences in speed are practically not found on earth. But in other aspects that include feeling (the major part of intelligence) there may be huge differences. Rationalism hugely undervalues feelings. Thus seemingly similar and stable concepts are rightfully interpreted differently in in that aspect far apart knowledge worlds. Feeling is a relative concept of intelligence, there are huge denied differences. Paradigms related to social views and not being rational are neglected. But that concerns all cultures outside The Western World. That such arrogant behavior finally triggers freedom fighting/terrorism is inevitable.
WHAT IF some of the affected concepts that in different cultures give rise to nasty differences in interpretation handle about things like ?!democracy, intelligence and terrorism !? |
High Time
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.
Einstein's interesm in Buddhism could be seen as recognizing the far reaching effects of relativism in social sciences.
Looking 5 minutes at television I saw one message about a group of pinguins being saved by being flow 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 rationalism is A way to leave poverty. Only they should NOT mistake Rationalism for the Final Goal. |
| In this article 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. |
Fear is the path to the dark side. Fear leads to anger. Anger leads to hate. Hate leads to suffering.
Yoda in "Star Wars Episode I : Phantom Menace
All my referential articles were on Internet. I used referential sources only to check my points of view, never to copy pieces of it. Anyway I hate articles with miles of references. In case you have a question just send me an e-mail.
That doen't mean free for thoughtless copying, please use your own words and thoughts. Otherwise reference.
| Sound of Hope |
This paper is the seventh in a sequence of 18 about the influence of Enlightenment Today
