Incommensurability of paradigms

[Guest guest]

Emmanuel,

 

I wish to respond to your email below.

You mention, amongst other things:

 

>>Ken wants us to " define our terms " . Of course, we can't render into

English perfectly a concept that has never existed in English. The

two cultures, languages and sciences of West and East have proceeded

so far and for so long in isolation of each other, that much of one

can not be fully articulated in the other. Chinese people liberally

use English terms for what can only be articulated in English.

Slowly, it must then occur to all who stub their mental toes on this

difficulty that the only way to " read " Chinese is not to translate it

into English ... but rather to " read Chinese " . So Ken's little trick

(consciously or unconsciously executed) is for us to define in English

what can not be defined in English. So in the end we can only define

our terms and intentions in Chinese characters.>>

 

A very useful and important concept in this context is Thomas Kuhn's

'incommensurability of paradigms'.

 

Basically, Kuhn pointed out that paradigms are not truth yielding, but

working methods. A paradigm is an approach to problem solving, based

on various assumptions (which may not be explicitly recognised by the

scientist) comprising a body of 'knowledge' within that framework, and

the task of a scientist is to solve yet unsolved problems utilising

that framework. This is what Kuhn terms 'Normal Science'. It is not, I

would observe, a particularly creative enterprise, but rather a

methodical one. Moreover, Kuhn shows that no paradigm is complete,

being unable to answer all the

questions that can be asked of it. A paradigm is not associated with

truth; it involves a methodological approach towards problems. It's

about saying 'if we assume this, and continue to investigate a narrow

range of phenomena along these lines, this is what we find.' A very

big problem is that to a large extent, what one ends up with is

tautologous - the working assumptions of the methodology are fed back

into the results. Unfortunately, most people do not realise this, and

mistakenly believe that science reveals the truth, or certainty, or

something like that, which cannot possibly be the case if one looks

very carefully at the scientific process.

 

 

 

[i'm reminded in this instance of a debate within music of whether

music can depict other things - e.g. the sea. Igor Stravinsky's

response to this was that music cannot express anything but itself,

although it does so most elegantly. In a similar way, science does

not, and cannot, reveal truth. It can only express itself - whether it

does so elegantly is a judgement best left to the observer, but if we

think it does, I suggest we consider widespread extermination of

species, iatrogenesis, and many other unpleasant things alongside the

marvels of Einstein's theories of relativity.]

 

 

A remarkable feature of paradigms is that terms used within a specific

paradigm are NOT translatable from one paradigm to another. For

example, Newton's Laws are not simply a special case of Einstein's

theories of relativity; 'the physical referents of these Einsteinian

concepts [i.e. space, time, and mass] are by

no means identical with those of the Newtonian concepts that bear the

same name.' (Kuhn, 1996) The specific meaning of concepts can elude

precise

 

definition, and emerge within the entire context of their use. The

world described or evoked by Einstein's Theory of Relativity is a

different one

 

from Newton's Law of Gravitation, and the fundamental concepts of each

reflect this. It is impossible to construct Einstein's world using

Newton's

 

conceptual building blocks. It is impossible to define 'space' or

'time' in a way that is accurately applicable to both Newtonian and

Einsteinian theory, or to define Einsteinian space and time within a

Newtonian framework, or vice versa. Yet Newton's and Einstein's

theories surely have much more in common than modern biomedicine with

traditional Chinese medicine. The gulf that separates modern science

and CM is not only vast, they're not even within the same dimensional

framework, so to speak. So to consider that CM is translatable into

our extant language and cultural systems of knowledge, must be fallacious.

 

 

 

Wainwright

 

 

 

-

" Emmanuel Segmen " <susegmen

 

Saturday, October 25, 2003 4:38 AM

Re: Re: What are Meridians?

 

 

> Jason,

>

> I really love this post of yours for so many reasons. However, it

also seems to me that you've most perfectly revealed the real intent

(conscious or unconscious) behind Ken's posts of recent times ... or

at all times. While it seems beautifully implicit in your entire

post, your second to last sentence says it most completely ... and I

quote: " In the end, there is no perfect English word for a concept

that never existed before. " I love this on so my levels but I will

resist the temptation to speak to anything except one thing. Ken

wants us to " define our terms " . Of course, we can't render into

English perfectly a concept that has never existed in English. The

two cultures, languages and sciences of West and East have proceeded

so far and for so long in isolation of each other, that much of one

can not be fully articulated in the other. Chinese people liberally

use English terms for what can only be articulated in English.

Slowly, it must then occur to all who stub their menta

> l toes on this difficulty that the only way to " read " Chinese is not

to translate it into English ... but rather to " read Chinese " . So

Ken's little trick (consciously or unconsciously executed) is for us

to define in English what can not be defined in English. So in the

end we can only define our terms and intentions in Chinese characters.

>

> And also, of course, the only way to fulfill Bob Flaw's mandate to

Stop Ken From Writing Again is for all of us to start posting in

Chinese characters. Then, of course, it won't matter what

Western-equivalent academic degree anyone has. We'll all be

addressing Chinese medical topics in Chinese ... and " what is Chinese

medicine " will be revealed in its own language.

>

> Emmanuel Segmen

[Guest guest]

Wainwright,

 

Thanks for your interesting post.

 

Going back to a previous discussion, I believe you and others said

that the use of research would inevitably lead to the

bio-medicalization of Chinese medicine. I'm interested in

understanding how this might come about.

 

Part of my question is, what can be considered strongly paradigmatic,

and what may not? ie what may be useful in, or common to, more than

one paradigm. For example, are methods of measurement paradigmatic?

It seems to me, that in order to count ten apples, ten Chinese

fingers are much the same as ten European fingers. A digital

calculator and an abacus can both render the same arithmetic results.

If so, can we not extend this analogy to the use of more

sophisticated methods of counting, such as statistics? Is the use of

statistical measurement so at odds with the paradigm of Chinese

medicine, that any measured results are not longer associated with

that paradigm? In what way would the use of statistics to measure

clinical outcomes of CM treatment, render those results meaningful in

terms of bio-medicine?

 

Rory

--