Incommensurability of paradigms

[Guest guest]

Rory,

Thanks for your post.

 

There are two very important considerations that as far as I can see

must apply to all research:

 

 

 

1) 'Observation is theory-laden'.

 

 

 

2) 'The unit of empirical significance is the whole of science'. (Quine)

 

 

 

An expression that possibly merges these two points was provided by

Noam Chomsky in a lecture I attended in London last year. Chomsky said

that the reason for scientific experiment was that 'it's chaos out

there'. There's very little that one can directly infer from

phenomena, hence experiments, in which one variable is altered.

However [and this is the point I wish to emphasise], Chomsky stresses

that 'scientific experiment is a small strand in theory.'

 

 

 

In other words, scientific research is conducted in a manner that is

not independent of theory, but to the contrary, is embedded within,

and inextricably linked to, theory. If you are doing astronomical

observations, you need a theory of light, a theory of optics, a theory

of the nature of the cosmos, etc. Quine's comment involves the insight

that if you enquire into this deeply, you'll realise that you need to

presuppose the entire edifice of science. So when a scientist

formulates theories about acupuncture, it assumes the existence of

atoms, subatomic particles, nerves, neurotransmitters, etc., etc. When

Harvard researchers say they're going to do research to see if

acupuncture is a placebo, being scientists they're most surely going

to bring all of these assumptions with them. And as I previously

argued, the very definition of placebo must involve formulations of

mechanisms, and these will be within the biomedical paradigm.

 

 

 

Ted Kaptchuk has informed the readers of Scientific American Frontiers

http://www.pbs.org/saf/1307/features/kaptchuk.htm

 

" Some of my research looks into what its mechanism is [referring to

placebo]. Do we see what physiological pathways it takes? How does

ritual get translated into physiology? Does acupuncture or herbal

medicine have more efficacy than a placebo?

 

" I'm not a proponent [of alternative medicine]. I actually am the same

way anyone else is at [Harvard Medical School] - probably even more

critical of those phenomena. I consider myself a scholar and a

scientist. "

 

As mentioned above, the moment mechanism is discussed, you know for

sure that a paradigm is involved - guess which one?

 

Now, returning to Rory's question, can you do research within a

different paradigm to the scientific? In the first instance, you have

to have a paradigm to work with. Unschuld has provocatively asserted

that there is no unique paradigm for CM, a point on which I think we

all agree. So you have to construct one. But now, you're not

conducting research according to the framework of CM, you're

conducting it according to the paradigm you've constructed. It's not

irrelevant to ask whether you'll even get research money to conduct

your research using your own constructed paradigm, but even if you do,

what claim will it have in relation to other people's constructs?

 

I could go on with this type of analysis, but I think that it is

already becoming clear that any research into CM using non-biomedical

paradigms is fraught with problematic issues, and it should be

apparent in any case that CM research will quickly head in a

biomedical direction.

 

Wainwright

 

 

 

-

 

" Rory Kerr " <rory.kerr

 

Saturday, October 25, 2003 1:48 PM

Re: Incommensurability of paradigms

 

 

> 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

 

>

>

[Guest guest]

, " kenrose2008 "

<kenrose2008> wrote:

 

> And one thing is not optional. If you want

> to play the music, you have to be

> able to read the score.

 

 

One could always jazz things up, play by ear and improvise. No?

 

Fernando