|Paradigm has been listed as a level-4 vital article in Philosophy. If you can improve it, please do. This article has been rated as Start-Class.|
Daily page views
|This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:|
"The Human Paradigm"
What's a deigma? lysdexia 18:48, 25 Oct 2004 (UTC)
- I assume you mean in Greek? I don't think all on its own "deigma" means anything, but I could be mistaken. You might ask one of the people listed at Wikipedia:Translators_available#Greek-to-English. -- Jmabel | Talk 20:33, Oct 25, 2004 (UTC)
Gebser's new consciousness
The following "reference" was recently added to the article, without comment, by an anonymous contributor who does not appear to have made any other contributions to the article:
- Clarke, Thomas and Clegg, Stewart (eds) (2000) "Changing Paradigms" London: HarperCollins ISBN 0006387314
This is a business book. I seriously doubt that it was used as a reference in the article. If no one responds in the next week or so to say what in the article is referenced from this source, I would like to remove it. -- 02:33, August 31, 2005 (UTC)
From article: " (Newtonian mechanics is an excellent approximation for speeds that are slow compared to the speed of light)."
Is this a safe statement? Isn't this presuming that the MOND vs Dark Matter debate has resolved to the MOND side?
Excuse my ignorance if I'm missing the point. I haven't made any changes to the article, as I may well be just misreading or misunderstanding the point. --Leigh (24 Feb 2006)
what does taht mean???
"...competing paradigms are not fully intelligible solely within the context of their own conceptual frameworks."
what does competing paradigms mean? the paradigm that are going to be compared? how come a paradigm can not be fully understanded within its own context. If it can't be understanded then it wouldn't call itself paradigm...
"...the real barrier to comparison is not necessarily the absence of common units of measure, but an absence of mutually compatible or mutually intelligible concepts."
I think this is a logical mistake
if two thing does not have mutually compatible/intelligible concepts, it already mean they don't have common units to be measured...
"A new paradigm which replaces an old paradigm is not necessarily better, because the criteria of judgment depend on the paradigm—and on the conceptual framework which defines it and gives it its explanatory value."
How come to define if a new pardigm is better than the old one is depend on itself? It just like I ask people "Am I handsome?" "they said: It depend on are you handsome@@"
Secondly, a paradigm define a conceptual framework or a conceptual framework define a paradigm????
"Examples include rejection of Aristarchus of Samos', Copernicus', and Galileo's theory of a heliocentric solar system, the discovery of electrostatic photography, xerography and the quartz clock."
Are we supposed to believe that electrostatic photography, xerography and the quartz clock were all rejected in spite of working prototypes due to paradigm paralysis? These examples definitely need citations or explanations. If no one knows what the author is talking about, the examples should be removed and perhaps replaced with something more relevant. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 220.127.116.11 (talk) 06:18, 3 December 2017 (UTC)