Huntercontact507

1. Thomas Kuhn Paradigm Shift
2. Paradigm Shift Examples Duck Rabbit
3. Paradigm Shift Examples
4. Paradigm Shift Examples In Life
5. Paradigm Shift Examples Theory
6. Paradigm Shift Examples Today

Paradigm is the way you see things and it has a huge influence in our lives more than we think. So what is a paradigm shift? How does one shift a paradigm? Quantitative approach to studying things). Another example of a paradigm is the theory of evolution. Evolution is the underlying structure which best fits the observable evidence in fields as diverse as biology (the evolution of species), geology (the evolution.

Paradigms and Paradigm Shifts

Andrew Finn

Thomas Kuhn popularized the concept of 'paradigm' in his 1962 book The Structure of Scientific Revolutions. Among other things, Kuhn argued that paradigms are like over-arching theories that guide specific areas of science. A paradigm is essentially a particular view of the world. Paradigms emerge to provide an overall framework for understanding particular phenomena. The paradigm gains acceptance if the community of interested scientists agrees that it fits with most of the observable data.

Paradigms Are One Category of 'Ideas'

Ideas and concepts (such as danger, big, anxiety, IQ) are mental images and not objects – they are not things observable in the real world. Theories and paradigms join several concepts together and attempt to approximate what is observable in the physical world. In that sense, all concepts, though they may be very useful (such as mathematics, philosophy, or triangle), are “fictions.” That is, they do not exist in the real world. One can find objects shaped like triangles in the physical world, but one cannot find “triangle” in the physical world.

In this view, paradigms, scientific theories, philosophies, and mathematics can never be “true.” Why? Because they are simply models - approximations constructed in the world of ideas that provide a useful way to interpret the physical world. We consider them useful because they lead to useful applications or useful ways to structure knowledge. Those that do not prove to be useful (the flat Earth view of the world, bloodletting as a cure for disease) are eventually discarded by all but a few.

Paradigms in Science

Paradigms provide models upon which 'particular coherent traditions of scientific research' can be based. For example, the scientific method itself is a paradigm (though which 'science' views the world: a traditional Western, empirical, quantitative approach to studying things). Another example of a paradigm is the theory of evolution. Evolution is the underlying structure which best fits the observable evidence in fields as diverse as biology (the evolution of species), geology (the evolution of the earth), and cosmology (the evolution of the stars, the galaxies, and the universe). A third example is Newtonian mechanics. This was the basic paradigm for physics until Einstein came a long and demonstrated that relativity was a better fit to the available facts – a better approximation to the real world. It’s not that mechanics was “false” and relativity “true.” Newtonian mechanics fit most of the available data found in the everyday existence of human beings, but broke down at extremes of mass and speed. But as a model, it was – and is – still very useful when dealing with the engineering, construction, and use of the technology and artifacts that people use in everyday life. Newtonian mechanics has been replaced as the dominant paradigm in physics, but it is not “false,” because it never was “true.” It is simply a model of how things work, and is either useful for one’s purpose or it is not useful.

Like theories, paradigms are 'useful fictions.' Like theories, they provide a framework upon which we can hang many or most of the observable facts (data) and better see the relationships among those facts. Paradigms are often theories that help define entire areas of study ('disciplines').

But the notion of paradigms that shape our world-view has been expanded beyond science to everyday life. Kuhn’s original focus was on the creation, testing, and replacement of major scientific theories with better theories – closer approximations to the observable data. Today, the term has been popularized to refer to things as simple as beliefs, attitudes and tastes. In this sense, a paradigm is analogous to a set of glasses one puts on. If the lenses are yellow, we see the world as yellow. After a while, we forget we have decided to look at the world through yellow lenses – we simply believe that the world is yellow. In the discussion that follows I will refer sometimes to the scientific meaning of paradigms (major world-views of science) and sometimes to the popular one (a particular approach to a particular issue).

Paradigms as Lenses

Once a paradigm (or model) is established or accepted, an interesting thing happens – it shapes how we interpret facts. Take someone who believes in a paradigm that holds that many UFO sightings are extra-terrestrial beings visiting the planet Earth. How do they interpret new evidence? An exhaustive government study of existing evidence and a report dismissing the extraterrestrial claims would probably be taken as more evidence for a cover-up. Ambiguous evidence is often be interpreted as favoring the theory.

Or listen to a talk show where the host is politically quite liberal or quite conservative. Virtually every event that occurs in the world is interpreted through a liberal or conservative lens. Typically new data points (facts) that appear to contradict the host’s paradigm are twisted to fit the existing (preferred) model. If you’re conservative you can see this in liberal thinking, and if you’re liberal you can see this in conservative thinking. But it’s hard to take off our own lenses and see the world “as it really is.” I put that in quotes because as soon as we enter the world of language and ideas and human communication, we must take on some paradigm, some perspective. And whether we're looking at a house, a mountain, or an issue, the perspective we take frames what we see.

This is where the scientific method comes in – it is designed to keep researchers from injecting their personal views into their data collection, data analysis, and conclusions. Researchers (are supposed to) rely on the scientific method to minimize bias and mistakes. While the scientific method provides a rigorous structure to keep scientists from their own biases, since they are human beings they are subject to the tendency to make sense of the world, find patterns, and emerge with a structure of beliefs that holds together.

But Kuhn argued that the scientist’s paradigm itself becomes a trap. He argued that scientists do a reasonable job of assessing data when considering alternative paradigms and theories. But once a scientist takes on a particular paradigm or theory, they see data that supports this view quite well, but they overlook contradicting data quite easily.

“Philosophers of science have repeatedly demonstrated that more than one theoretical construction can always be placed upon a given collection of data. History of science indicates that, particularly in the early developmental stages of a new paradigm, it is not even very difficult to invent such alternates. But that invention of alternates is just what scientists seldom undertake except during the pre-paradigm stage of their science's development and at very special occasions during its subsequent evolution. So long as the tools a paradigm supplies continue to prove capable of solving the problems it defines, science moves fastest and penetrates most deeply through confident employment of those tools. The reason is clear. As in manufacture so in science - retooling is an extravagance to be reserved for the occasion that demands it. The significance of crises is the indication they provide that an occasion for retooling has arrived.” - Thomas S. Kuhn in The Structure of Scientific Revolutions (p. 76)

Paradigm Shifts

A paradigm shiftoccurs when there is a “crisis” in a particular field. The crisis is always related to the fact that the old paradigm can no longer account for enough of the existing evidence to be believed by a majority of people. At the same time, there is typically strong enough evidence to indicate that a relatively new paradigm is a better structure through which to view the available evidence. At first, such new approaches are often rejected, even ridiculed. Copernicus and Galileo both had better paradigms, but they both suffered for leading the scientific revolution – for being too far ahead of their times.

It takes time, but eventually the old view is replaced by the new view, because it is a better approximation to reality (it fits better with the available evidence). For example, Newtonian mechanics was the primary paradigm in physics until the 20th Century when Einstein's theory of relativity was demonstrated to be a better approximation of the physics of the universe.

'[Individuals who break through by inventing a new paradigm are] almost always...either very young or very new to the field whose paradigm they change....These are the men (sic) who, being little committed by prior practice to the traditional rules of normal science, are particularly likely to see that those rules no longer define a playable game and to conceive another set that can replace them.' - Thomas S. Kuhn in The Structure of Scientific Revolutions

The term 'paradigm' has been popularized in the last 20 years and some very minor trends, such as changes in consumer preferences for music, clothes, or soda, have been touted as paradigm shifts. Rather than be a purist and refuse to recognize that the language of paradigms has been co-opted by business and industry for smaller trends, let’s go with the flow. And it is possible to find examples within business, government, or education of changes so profound that, at least within those particular fields, they merit the title of a 'paradigm shift.'

Can you think of several good examples? Here are some specific fields where, if you consider the developments in that area, you can probably think of one or more paradigm shifts that have occurred in last 100 years:

COMM 470 students - please bring to our next class a list of several examples of major shifts from an old paradigm to a new paradigm and several examples of minor shifts (be sure to list “from what” and “to what”).

Relevant Links

Professor Frank Pajares’ (Emory University) chapter by chapter outline of The Structure of Scientific Revolutions

Professor Tim Healy (Santa Clara University) overview of Kuhn and paradigms (brief)

Reality Check - Buddy can you paradigm?

Biography of Thomas Kuhn

Thomas Kuhn Paradigm Shift

Bibliography

Asgar, Jack. (1993). Paradigm lost. Training, 30(11), 94.

Atwood, C. & Evans, L. (1994). Perilous paradigms. Executive Excellence, 11 33:20.

Barker, J. (1993). Paradigms: The business of discovering the future. New York: Harper Business.

Barker, J. (1994, July 18). Reach out for the future. Industry Week, 243(14), 12-16.

Brown, T. (1992, May 18). Joel Barker: New thoughts on paradigms. Industry Week. 41(10), 12-19.

Burack, E. (1994). New paradigm approaches in strategic human resource management. Group & Organizational Management, 19(2), 141-159.

Flower, J. (1991). Don't wait for the crisis: Interview with Joel Barker. Healthcare Forum. 34(6), 28-34.

Harris, P. R. (1992). The future of management: The NASA paradigm. Space Resources: Social Concerns. (Vol. 4). [pp.120-142. Houston: Johnson Space Center.

The history of an unlikely buzzword. (1991, Sept. 23). Fortune, 124, 140.

Hodgetts, R. (1994). New paradigm organizations: From total quality to learning to world-class. Organizational Dynamics, 22(3), 5-19.

Horgan, J. (1991):Profile: Reluctant revolutionary. Scientific American, 264(5), 40, 49. (Thomas S. Kuhn unleashed 'paradigm' on the world.)

Horwich, P. G. (Ed.). (1993). World changes: Thomas Kuhn and the nature of science. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

Hovningen-Huene, P. (1993). Reconstructing scientific revolutions: Thomas S. Kuhn's philosophy of science. Chicago: University of Chicago.

Kuhn, T. S. (1970). The structure of scientific revolutions. Chicago: University of Chicago. (originally published in 1962)

Luecal, S. (1992). The future is spelled CONSUMER. Management Quarterly, 33(3), 11-16.

Pfeffer, J. (1993). Barriers to the advance of organizational science: Paradigm development as a dependent variable. Academy of Management Review, 18(4), 599-620.

Prince, F. A. (1994). The paradigm shift process. Creativity and Innovation Management, 3(1), 29-32.

Zemke, R. (1994). Don't change your paradigm, change your drill bit. Training, 31(4), 8. (A critique of Kuhn’s views on paradigms)

Between the end of the Old Testament and the middle of the New Testament, a huge shift in thinking takes place. If you don’t understand this shift in thinking, you’ll find many passages of the Bible to be confusing, and you’ll take away from the Bible meaning that was never intended.

#1 God’s people: a nation or a faith community
In most of the Old Testament, God’s people were understood to be the Israelis (or Israelites, the Jews). God’s people were members of a nation, a people group, all descended from a common ancestor—Jacob, son of Isaac, grandson of Abraham. While anyone could worship God, the right ancestry gave one an enormous advantage.

In the New Testament, God’s people come from any and all nations. The original New Testament word for “church” is ekklesia which literally means “called out.” God’s people are called out of every nation. This was a huge paradigm shift for the early followers of Jesus.

In the Old Testament, the focus was on a nation; in the New Testament the focus was on the individual and on communities of faith.

#2 Reward: the land or God Himself
The reward for the righteous in the Old Testament was the land. More specifically it was the land currently occupied by the nation of Israel plus some. God promised His people the land of Canaan, and He promised they would own and occupy it as long as they remained faithful and obedient to Him. When the nation of Israel turned away from God, God took away the land from His people, but He promised to one day restore it to them.

In the New Testament, God makes no such promise to the church. Instead, the reward for their faithfulness is God Himself—a relationship with Him.

#3 Salvation: military victory or removal of sin
The Old Testament people of God understood “salvation” to mean that they would be rescued from their enemies. In other words, there would probably be a war, and the nation of Israel would win the military victory. They would be “saved” from their enemies.

New Testament authors understood salvation to mean that the people of God (the church) would be saved from sin and allowed to enjoy God’s rule. This salvation culminates in the return of Jesus Christ to earth to set all things right.

#4 Focus: this life or the life to come
Although Old Testament authors had a concept of resurrection and life after death, the focus of their thinking was on this life. As a rule, good people were rewarded for their faith by prospering in this life. A long life was a sign of God’s blessing.

In the New Testament, the focus is on eternal life. It is understood that this life isn’t fair, that good people are often persecuted and deprived of the rewards that should be theirs, but their reward will be given in the life to come.

#5 Presence of God: Temple in Jerusalem or God’s people
While both the Old and New Testaments understood God to be omnipresent and unable to be contained even by the entire universe, in the Old Testament, God’s presence was centered in the Most Holy Place (or Holy of Holies), a special room within the Temple of God that was never entered except by the high priest and then only once a year on the Day of Atonement. (This, by the way, was the significance of the curtain in the Temple being torn in half at the time Jesus died. It signified that God had opened up a way for His people to enter His home.) It was destroyed by the Romans about 40 years after the crucifixion of Jesus. The Wailing Wall (or Western Wall) in Jerusalem is considered to be part of the ruins of the Temple complex.

In the New Testament, God’s presence is no longer focused in a building. Instead, both the church (i.e., all followers of Jesus—NOT a church building) and the individual believer are considered the home (temple) of God.

#6 Worship: Temple sacrifices or anywhere
In the Old Testament, God’s people were expected to travel to Jerusalem regularly to celebrate festivals and to make animal sacrifices at the Temple. Alternate places of worship were forbidden.

But in the New Testament, animal sacrifices became obsolete because Christ’s sacrifice of Himself on the cross fulfilled the purpose of all animal sacrifices. Believers instead present their lives as a living sacrifice to God, and worship God wherever they are any place in the world.

#7 Access to God: limited or expanded
The message of the Old Testament is clear: God is not to be trifled with. He is holy, and He is not to be approached except under the most stringent conditions. As a rule, only one person (the high priest) was allowed into the presence of God to act as a mediator between God and His people. This happened only once per year on the Day of Atonement. There were multiple barriers to accessing God, and severe penalties for crossing those barriers.

In the New Testament, Jesus Christ is the mediator between God and man, and all believers have a role as a priest (someone with access to God).

In addition, certain people (e.g., lepers) were excluded from the life of worship in the Old Testament, but were welcomed into God’s presence in the New Testament.

#8 Transformation: law transforms a nation or grace transforms individuals and communities
The law of Moses is introduced in the Old Testament. The law was intended to hold God’s people to a high standard so that all people would admire and follow the example of the nation of Israel. That ended up being, at best, a mixed success. At certain times (e.g., under King David), the nation of Israel did very well. But at other times, their actions damaged God’s reputation.

In the New Testament, God offers transformative grace to each believer empower him or her share God’s perspectives and to live well.

Paradigm Shift Examples Duck Rabbit

In the Old Testament, God’s Spirit empowered people for certain tasks or missions.

Paradigm Shift Examples

In the New Testament, God’s Spirit came to live inside His people.

#9 Instructions: Cultural or transcendent
Many of the instructions given in the Old Testament made sense to the culture of the day, but do not translate well into our culture today.

While the Old Testament contained transcendent moral principles, these transcendent principles became the focus of the teaching of Jesus and the apostles. New Testament teachings were intended to be trans-cultural so that members of any people group could join God’s church.

Old Testament regulations often focused on outward behavior and symbols, while New Testament commands focused on inner attitudes.

#10 Power: leaders or people with little power
Much of the Old Testament is directed at people in places of power. God speaks to kings, prophets, priests, and other leaders. As a rule, these people had considerable power and influence in the nation of Israel.

Much of the New Testament, by contrast, is addressed to people who have little or no political power. Followers of Christ are often persecuted, denied their rights, abused, and even murdered for their faith. In this sense, the New Testament is a survival guide for people who find themselves among the oppressed.

Paradigm Shift Examples In Life

#11 Evil: foreign invaders or spiritual evil within
In the Old Testament, evil is often personified by the actions of neighboring people groups who followed gods other than the God of the Bible. Corruption of Israeli kings and other leaders made the nation of Israel vulnerable to foreign invasion. When the people of God turned away from evil, God typically sent a leader to rescue the nation from foreign oppression.

In the New Testament, evil is seen as something more personal—evil spiritual beings led by Satan controlling an evil world system populated by people corrupted by their own sinful attitudes. Faith, grace, and God’s Spirit work together to empower God’s people to triumph over evil by doing good regardless of how they are treated.

Paradigm Shift Examples Theory

#12 Nature of God: God is one or God is three in one
In the Old Testament, the message is clear: God is one. This was in clear contrast to the polytheistic religions popular at that time.

In the New Testament, God is three in one—the Trinity. Father, Son, and Holy Spirit act in perfect harmony as co-equals each with different roles.

Paradigm Shift Examples Today

All of these changes in thinking were major paradigm shifts for the people of God. If you understand these changes in thinking, it will be much easier to understand the message of the Bible when you read it.