Arches

If you're stuck in a browser frame - click here to view this same page in Quantonics!

"He had prayed for rain and got a flood."
Professor Emeritus Clifford Geertz (Princeton's IAS) in his superb Available Light, Chapter VII, p. 165, PUP, 2000, 1st ed.,
re: Kuhn and his momentous SoSR.

See our important Kuhn Puzzle update
on
Enthymemetics

Review of Thomas Kuhn's The Structure of Scientific Revolutions (SoSR)
___________________________________________________________1962 original, UChicP, 1996 3rd edition paper bound, 212 pages including index. -
9June2001 - 13August2001
By Doug Renselle

Kuhn's thelogos, sample averaged from several pages is ~7%.

(Need wingdings font.)

SoSR HotMemes™
Kuhn's 1969 Postscript

"We are in It and It is in us." Eugen Herrigel, paraphrased.1
"We are in Quality and Quality is in us." Robert M. Pirsig, paraphrased.2
"We are in paradigms and paradigms are in us." Thomas S. Kuhn, paraphrased.3
"All analytic paradigms are non absolute: they all affect and evoke anomalous phenomena." Anon.

Prereview apprisals -

Reader, please allow us some moments to apprise you of our approach in this review, as described in our next few paragraphs.

Essentially Thomas Kuhn (1922-1996) is a classicist. He adheres classical fundamentals of monistic, objective, analytic, scientific logical positivism. However, some of his ~1962 prescient thoughts appear very subjective in nature. His apparent subjectivism helped many of his critics make strong inferences that Kuhn is a crypto-relativist. We see him, much as philosopher William James (1842-1910) in later life (i.e., between 1870-1910), leaning toward scientific evolution: away from monism, and toward pluralism, e.g., "many Kuhnian paradigms."

Reader, in your view, if pluralism and relativism share too many memes then of course we must say that Kuhn has relativistic tendencies. Perhaps too, in your own mind, you may n¤t distinguish among many flavors of relativism: objective vis-à-vis subjective vis-à-vis c¤mplementarity of both, and then parallel and sequential versions of those. Parallel objective relativism is close kin of post modernism or what many call "cultural relativism." Both-all parallel and-many sequential subjective-objective relativism — with an inclusive, more subjective, version of c¤mplementarity — is nearer what we view as "quantum relativism." In our view, we see Kuhn's parallel-sequential so-called "subjective" memes as analogous in some respects Niels Bohr's own comments about (, and a mandate for, a more objective, 'exclusive-') c¤mplementary quantum reality. And again, ~subjectively, Kuhn agrees with Bohr's, and others' cogent remarks about predominately objective languages and symbols as major limiting factors in humans' abilities to understand a more quantum reality.

Our Structure of Scientific Revolutions (SoSR) review approach differs significantly from and notably counters logical positivism while offering readers our own unique quantum views which we commingle under appellation quantonics. Our views see nature as a quantum reality wholly different from classical sciences' views. Our views see nature as quantum stindyanic both-all/many-ands (i.e., quantons) of almost unlimited quantum c¤mplements: parallelism-sequentialism, dynamis-persistence, pluralism-monism, subjectivism-objectivism, etc.

We want you to know now, before you invest considerable time reading this review, that we shall review and critique Kuhn based upon our unique perspectives.

Infrequently, reader, when you see n¤, n¤r, and n¤t in our review below, we intend a quantum logic of subjective negation.

One final prereview comment: classicists see quantum reality as oxymoronic, i.e., implicitly, classically self-contradictory. If you, reader, are a classicist, you will find many of our review comments below oxymoronic. For example, if you are a classicist, when you read our top of page quotes, you probably thought then that they are oxymoronic. Quantum epiphany asserts its multiversal enlightenment when a classicist's oxymoronicity subsides. How can you commence this quantum enlightenment? Try our Möbius experiments. Study Quantonics by browsing at our website's top page. See our recent How to Become a Student of Quantonics.

The Structure of Scientific Revolutions HotMemes™ -

Schizophrenic Science
Extraordinary Science
Classical Static Optimisms
Kuhn's Quantum Avatars
Kuhn's Partial Puzzle, "What's Unsaid"
Immutability & Solipsism
Nature of Science

Review of Kuhn's SoSR -

Thomas Kuhn's SoSR is a superb accomplishment for humanity. Witness our paraphrased quote above and its potent c¤mplementary analogies4 to Pirsig, Herrigel, and quantum reality. Kuhn, though a degreed, titled, and revered classicist, glimmers:

  1. hints of his own partial self-extraction from classicism,
  2. recognition of parallel-pluralistic objective relativism's profound win over sequential-monistic objective classicism, and
  3. an apparent though dim awareness of imminent philosophical and scientific metadigm shifts which will subsume both objective relativism and objective classicism.

Kuhn is, in our view, a genius. His genius resides in his profound abilities to see sciences' forests in lieu of sciences' foci on their own trees, while placing many of sciences' massive changes and plateaux of thought in roughly a two millennium super-paradigmatic historical perspective. We also feel comfortable calling Kuhn a genius via his own apparent intuitions and his metadigmatic historical perspectives' coincidental affinities with both Robert M. Pirsig's work and quantum science.

We are writing this review from a perspective that three philosophical 'paradigms' dominate Western culture at Millennium III's beginning:

We assume that Kuhn's writings about paradigmatic scientific revolutions mostly fall under SOM, and we offer much evidence of that. Indeed we show that paradigmatism (i.e., currently popular, in vogue axiom set) is spawn of SOM's analyticity which imposes sequential side-by-side paradigmatic Glass Bead Game shifts of a sequence of bead-like scientific regimes. We also show that SOM itself, as a super-paradigm, is problematic, and we show how Kuhn both fails to recognize many of those problematics and uses inertially, yet often sceptically, SOM's own general assumptions to present most of his material.

Kuhn does n¤t use our CR, MoQ terminology, but we infer he describes their affine nexuses to paradigmatic science, and certainly he discusses SOM's legacy sequence of paradigm shifts via his own perspectives. Yet too, we infer he hints at legacy's wane and some esoteric interloper's imminent infant emergence.

Kuhn tells us science's:

By contrast Kuhn says science's:

Kuhn uses two phrases rather consistently: "normal6 science," and "extraordinary7 science." We find fascinating his use of language semantics surrounding each. He uses more classical terminology around "normal science," and Kuhn uses noticeably more quantum heuristics and descriptions around "extraordinary science."

Normal science (i.e., intra-paradigm status quo science):

SoSR HotMeme™: Extraordinary Science (paradigm-shifting science):

To Kuhn, a paradigm is like a lens through which one views reality. Using differing lenses one views reality in differing ways. And each different view evokes, whether normal scientists like it or not, paraphenomena and paradoxes (paradice). A paradigm shift commences state-ic use of a new lens. Use of a particular lens is 'normal science' working in its latest selected 'state.' Changing lenses (paradigm shifted state) is a role for 'extraordinary science.' Newer 'normal science' depends on 'extraordinary science' for its survival and successes.

Consider paradigm shifts as classically evoked paradice — classically conjured sophisms. Science's classical predilections unintentionally but ultimately elicit paradoxes and more paradoxes which further elicits one paradigm shift after another. Paradoxes are classical 'effects' unanticipated and unpredicted by a current paradigm. Classical, 'normal' scientists fail to recognize these classical 'effects' for their quantum nature. 'Normal' scientists are paradigmatically blinded to nature's quantum tells. Usually, 'normal' scientists will use a toe to raise a carpet's edge and sweep these unexpected paraphenomena away. A perfect recent example is Donald McDonald's historical description of John Bardeen's attempts to sweep Brian Josephson's quantum tunneling paraphenomena under a carpet's edge. Under any current paradigm phenomena arise which are quintessentially science-quakes. They literally shake a current paradigm's foundations. Kuhn cites countless examples.

To Kuhn, a paradigm is a box in which normal science places all its beliefs, commitments, and staunch — even hubristic and arrogant — adherences, until a better paradigm emerges. A paradigm shift is when a new breed of extraordinary scientists choose to jump into that newer, better box. In that better box, extraordinary scientists invent new puzzles for solving much of what a preceding paradigm swept under its carpet's edge. From a quantum perspective, a classical paradigm shift is a relatively minor formal change in a much larger natural evolutionarily "genetic" animation. A formal decision to change paradigms, to choose one paradigm over another, involves issues which are insoluble by science per se, especially "normal science." Solubility of those issues requires a metadigmatic look at nature, in physial deed a quantum metaphysical/philosophical examination of nature using memes outside of science's competing paradigms. Such is what quantonics suggests, n¤t just in crises, but as incessant, phasic, animate, modalities — pragmadigmatic overviews and active support of:

Quantum Post Modern philosophers, in our opinion, are better qualified for this role and should undertake it. Where scientists look at trees (and only want to look at trees), philosophers look at nature and forests and want to compete various modes of interrelating nature, forests, and trees. At Millennium III's start scientific grundlagen are crumbling, especially mathematics and mechanics plus all sciences which depend upon them. It is time to ascend:

When we use a word like hubris we always feel a tinge of guilt. How can we say that a respected discipline like classical science is hubristic, arrogant? Kuhn provides plenty of examples. One is a theme we propound often: classical scientists believe so strongly in their current paradigm that when they encounter an anomaly twixt nature and their paradigm, they wonder, "…how can nature so rudely violate our paradigm?" In other words, scientists tend to create paradigms and then declare nature "wrong" when she inevitably violates them. To us, reader, that is arrogance! So should we feel guilty when we declare scientists hubristic? Perhaps better that you decide, else we uncloak a tad of our own hubris. We offer a superb example here: Resnikoff.

Kuhn apparently misses (in our review, here, we try to show this) a point that his Western cultural view of paradigm shifts falls under a dominant larger classical paradigm which we call SOM which lasted from approximately Aristotle to Einstein (~2.3 millennia). He does n¤t discuss a cultural-philosophical metadigm shift from SOM to CR, which we think is almost over now; however he mentions several tells and features of that shift. Some of his critics accuse him of cultural relativism, calling his sequential paradigms and their shifts "relative." Kuhn ineffectively responds that CR is many parallel views, and his paradigms are analytically sequential. Kuhn's discipline is primarily science history, and most of his focus is on paradigm shifts within science itself. That narrower focus might explain Kuhn's absent discussion of a less apparent SOM-CR metadigm shift. Also, no good classicist could ever announce his recognition of such a shift without experiencing massive counsel for herm (her-him) to, "Put that CR toothpaste (Pandora) back in its (her) tube (box), and deny that you ever even mentioned it (her)."

We want to show that Kuhn's SoSR is a child of SOM. That said, it has lower utility as a paradigm evaluator for impending massive Millennium III changes.

SoSR HotMeme™: Classical Static Optimisms (key disablers of classical science's deign of feign):

We have some clues. One set of clues are what we call Kuhn's "crown jewels of paradigm shifts." They are all classically scientific, conceptually naïve, hubristic, and static optimisms:

When scientists adhere Kuhnian crown jewels like those we list above we can see even more of their classical arrogance. Why? How? N¤ne of those 'jewels' is a valid descriptor of natural reality! For each of those terms we can say and show that reality neither fits n¤r adheres them. For example, natural reality is n¤t, in general: analytic, single event deterministic, conservative, conventional, dichotomous, effective (causal), radically mechanical, objective, quantitative, state-ic, tautological, etc.

Only in an overriding SOM paradigm could any 'scientist' adhere those "jewels" while declaring nature "wrong." Does Kuhn himself reside in that overriding SOM paradigm? We think so. Witness, on page 23, "In science, on the other hand, a paradigm is rarely an object for replication. Instead, like an accepted judicial decision in the common law, it is an object for further articulation and specification under new or more stringent conditions." Kuhn sees paradigms as classical "objects."

To his credit, Kuhn recognizes several of classical science's jewels as equivocal. A great example is his page 146 anti-Popperian, "Nevertheless, anomalous experiences may not be identified with falsifying ones. Indeed, I doubt the latter exist." We take Kuhn's intended semantic as denying Popper's conjecture of general falsifiability by contradiction in nature. We agree. Readers please observe that Kuhn is intuitively expressing a con(m)cern regarding a great solution (to our globe's metastasis of dialectic) via using quantum th~ought's antinomialismq over~hyper~above classical thing-kings' oppositionc.

However, he could have meant that classical reality is single, unicontextual, (see OGC) in which case no (paradigm axiomatic theory - 17Oct2001 Doug) falsifying experiences classically 'exist.' If that is what he intended, then he is a SOMite of first magnitude.

We deny Popperian falsifiability on grounds that classical negation is subjective. Elsewhere, e.g., page 29, almost dyslexically Kuhn insists that paradigms of reality may not be just classically quantitative, rather they depend upon both qualitative and quantitative perspectives of nature with former offering greater value for progress. Classical scientists tend to insist that reality is wholly quantitative and that qualitative perspectives are subjective and thus should be thrown out.

In quantonics, as students of quantonics, we understand that qualitative nature is much more highly evolved (in pure quantumese: "evolve-ing," and in QELR: "ævolving" - 20Dec2001 Doug.) than nature's quantitative apparitions. We have Robert M. Pirsig's fine mentorship and tutelage to thank for that.

Thomas Kuhn we conclude then, demonstrably, is predominately a SOMite, with several noteworthy quantum intuitions.

Some folk question whether Kuhn is a cultural relativist (CRite). Near end of our reading of SoSR we begin to see why some folk consider him a CRite. Kuhn keeps repeating that many scientists can, do, and will view theories, looking at them in very similar ways, and arrive at entirely different assessments of a given theory. This perhaps is our strongest 'tell' of whether Kuhn is a CRite. Actually, we see Kuhn in a much greater arena than that. We see him straddling, even commingling both Subject-Object Metaphysics and Cultural Relativism. And to extend our view of his greater arena even more, we see glimmers of his own epiphanous quantum revelations. So to call Kuhn "…just a CRite…" would, in our opinion, be rudely and crudely naïve. His genius is too complex for such oversimplification.

Besides, CR as practiced in Western culture at Millennium III's start is merely a polylogical-definite extension of SOM's unilogic. CR's "heterogeneous incommensurabilities" view of reality is much too naïve for a man of Kuhn's genius. It is a rude and CRude infantile step toward quantum/MoQ percepts that fails badly in its abilities to describe nature.

See our recent 2003-2004 Feuilleton Chautauqua's Bases of Judgment.

Pay particular attention to its two right columns and those columns' yellow, gray, and red cells.

Read from bottom up, starting with yellow cells. CR is to left and SOM is to right.

Doug - 27Mar2004.

Regardless his SOMitic predilections and his CResque and MoQesque instincts and intuitions, Kuhn describes classical science hopping from one paradigm to another.

It is interesting how Kuhn shows us that classical science insists on allegiance to a single paradigm, i.e., one paradigm at a time. Reader, please forgive our pimping, "…one paradigm fits all for now…paradigm status quo is the way to go for now…" Yet in that pimping unfolds and uncloaks change…absolute change…quantum change… It is also interesting how Kuhn shows us that classical science becomes impotent without hiatal ("…for now…") uniparadigmatic allegiance — massive scientific schizophrenia ("…for now…")!

From a larger perspective, we see classical science's paradigm hopping as evidence of many paradigms (mostly sequential pluralism). Sadly, rather than accepting this larger perspective, classical science diligently visits one paradigm, then discovers another, effaces former, and so on… We think a metaparadigm presides, but classical scientists are blinded to its presence by Kuhn's classical "crown jewels." In aggregate we call Kuhn's crown jewels "Subject-Object Metaphysics," or "SOM."

But Kuhn's genius also plumbs MoQ/quantumesque themes. He talks much of competing paradigms forcing a classical either/or switch of Gestalt. See SoSR, Sec's. VI, VIII, X & XII.

Certainly Gestalt is n¤t a wholly classical way of thing-king. Gestalt memes are n¤t classically analytic. Moreover they are, like quantons, absolutely synergistic where classical radical formality denies any synergy in any classical system. Where synergy implies emergence, classical systems must prevent emergence as a pathological, even unpredictable phenomenon! Aristotle's syllogisms and countless other derivative classical concepts intentionally preclude Gestalt synergy. Aristotle's objects are incapable of synergy! From our quantonics perspectives then, Kuhn-tendered Gestalt memetics demonstrate his own genius' glimmer of nature's quantum underpinnings — even though he speaks of them using classical language. We will attempt to build a similar list of Kuhnian quantum avatars (we intend semantic epiphanies and enlightenments here in our use of avatars; ihn quantonics wæ vihew avatars as quantum amd by that wæ ihntændings anihmatæ, EIMA, æmærscing amd æmærscænturable 'rææmb¤dyings' - Doug 27Mar2004) c¤mplementing our list of classical jewels above — so that you may compenetrate them — for your own edification.

SoSR HotMeme™: Kuhn's glimmers of Quantum memetic Avatars:

But Kuhn's avatars were unable to offer him any quantum epiphany. As additional evidence to his 'crown jewels' we offer by contrast how — Kuhn classically accepts these legacy scientific nostrums:

So again, we may infer that Kuhn only saw quantum glimmers, without adopting them.

Kuhn's thelogos is no less irritating than others'. And as we already see, his thelogos is a powerful tell of his innate allegiance to SOM, and thus we cannot help but recur our measure of him as a mostly classical man. His most telling use of 'the' is in his original text's penultimate paragraph on page 172,

He does n¤t say,

Notice how his own (we are sure unintended) hubristic classical use of English grammar belies his profound meme that paradigms are forever r-evolutionary and never arrive at any natural goal. In our retrospect and as most of us do, "Hindsight is perfect opinion:" Kuhn needs language remediation more than meme repair.

Finally, stating that his SoSR does not create this question's problem, Kuhn asks humankind's most frequently proffered and most difficult question, "What must the world be like in order that man may know it?" A newer and more novel pragmadigm called "quantum science," which we are just entering at Millennium III's beginning, incompletely answers Kuhn's question by saying that finite sentient intellect may both partially know reality and simultaneously remain incapable of absolute knowledge of reality. Any knowledge which humankind possesses about reality shall remain always, "quantum uncertain."

Prior to our review of Kuhn's SoSR postscript we want to spend some prose on what Kuhn says about puzzles and science. Then we want to tell you about a unique puzzle meme which Kuhn introduces on page 37. We also want to look at his extraordinary puzzle meme in light of our own beliefs about science and nature.

Kuhn says that most fundamentally what science and scientists do is "solve puzzles." To exemplify, Kuhn uses a classical jigsaw puzzle concept. How is it classical? It is solvable/soluble. A classical jigsaw puzzle is locally closed and complete. As long as all of its pieces 'exist' and are present for potential assembly-solution, a jigsaw puzzle is locally complete. Each of its pieces is an object whose analytic integral proper solution is a whole puzzle object. Normal 'scientists' view a classical jigsaw puzzle as non-Gestalt. Solution to any jigsaw puzzle depends only upon a 'scientist's' capabilities to discover where puzzle pieces should go in order to 'solve' a puzzle.

That brief description encapsulates a fine metaphor of modern 'classical' science and its views of problem-solving. Success is only limited by a particular scientist's abilities to solve said puzzle. Inability to solve said puzzle is "failure." Discovery of said puzzle's 'solution' is "success."

Begin SoSR Partial Puzzle, "What's Unsaid," HotMeme™ Then Kuhn introduces a novel puzzle meme. It is, like many of his thoughts, a very quantum meme. He tells us about a puzzle meme which is classically insoluble. Imagine two puzzles in their jumbled form. Imagine further that each puzzle has, let's say, 15% of its pieces missing. Further imagine all of both puzzles' remaining pieces mixed together.

Kuhn tells us that no classical scientist can ever succeed at 'solving' this puzzle. We agree. Why? Both puzzles prior to mixing them are classically 'incomplete.' As such, regardless how we combine their pieces, we can never achieve a complete puzzle solution. And mixing them adds more uncertainty.

When we first read this novel puzzle meme of Kuhn's, we anticipated that he was going to tell us that this was a superb metaphor of postmodern quantum sciences and their views of quantum problem-solving. However, Kuhn did not do that. He intended only to express this meme as a classical example of impossible problems.

We saw, instead, Kuhn's double puzzle meme as a quanton. It is a quantum uncertain both-all/and-many of two quantum uncertain puzzles. Essentially, that previous sentence is a description of nature, using quantum memes to describe her.

Aside - 1Apr2003:

A quantum version of Kuhn's classically insoluble puzzle-pair is a delightful metaphor of a crucial aspect of bio-'logical' reproduction. Allow us to use human reproduction as our specific example.

Imagine a quantum bio-'logical' pr¤cess of meiosis (Linguistically, "understatement." Litotes!). Meiosis issi a quantum pr¤cess of gametogenesis: birth/emergence of human haploidal reproductive cells. They come, quasi-instantiated, in a limited number of ~parthenogentic gamete female haploidal emerqants which we call "ova" amd "eggs." T¤¤, amd quite omnifferently from females, males pr¤duce ~comtinuously, in nearly unlimited n¤mbærs, their gamete haploidal emerqants which we call "spermatozoa" amd "sperm."

A n¤vel amd quantum umcærtain emergence of a human comceives when a sperm quantum-included-middle "fertilizes" an ovum in a pr¤per quantum comtext (usually a female womb/uterus).

We can view a quantum c¤mplement sperm amd an quantum c¤mplement ovum as analogous Kuhn's two puzzles.

Each has a quantum-c¤mplementary diploidal half (haploid) of ¤ne human genome. Each issi an inc¤mplete (e.g., incapable, per se, of expressing all ~26700 heterozygotic human possibilities) puzzle in Kuhn's exemplar semantic. How? Each issi quantum-zygotic: b¤th homozygotic amd heterozygotic. Human homozygosity issi that physially quantum aspect of its RNA which issi usually/normally/classically conceived as "fixed/certain," "topologically ~invariant" (number of brain lobes, number of limbs, number of fingers, number of corpus calosa, number of lungs, number of vertebrae, and so on...). Classical homozygosity in humans is roughly 93.3% of RNA exons (i.e., 'expressed,' non-UUU DNA code). Classical human heterozygosity is that part (~6.7%) of its RNA which is classically static-latch- "-variable/-programable/-uncertain" (eye color, hair color, skin color, height, blood type, fingerprints, and so on).

So, just as Kuhn offered us an opportunity to extend his dichon(85%_complete_puzzle_1, 85%_complete_puzzle_2) to a more quantum notion of quanton(uncertain_puzzle_1,uncertain_puzzle_2), we can offer you a natural analogy of that emergent philosophical metaphor as quantum human comception as quanton(quantum_umcærtain_c¤mplement_ovum,quantum_umcærtain_c¤mplement_sperm).

It is a quantum learning experience for students of Quantonics to fathom how classical objective formalisms are innately incapable of describing, understanding, and learning this quantum biological 'puzzle' exemplar. Ova amd spermatozoa are quantum semper flux EIMA quantons. They may n¤t be 'defined' as 'real' classical, 'stable, independent objects!'

As we demonstrate often, our quantonic script is incredibly flexible and powerful.

We want to show you here a novel application of our quantonic script depicting biological gametic haploids (i.e., quantum~Kuhnian partial~incomplete puzzles) as quantons.

ovum_haploidquanton(quantum_umcærtain_c¤mplement_ovum,...) # An Quantonic enthymemetic of 'ovum.' See 23Oct2006 aside just below.

sperm_haploidquanton(quantum_umcærtain_c¤mplement_sperm,...) # An Quantonic enthymemetic of 'sperm.' See 23Oct2006 aside just below.

Our scripts show quantons which are, in a quantum~Kuhnian sense, 'partial puzzles.' Now we can see in this simple script quantum openness and quantum included-middles prior (e.g., biological) EIMA~inclusion~superposition~entanglement~emergence. Using our isox semantics we can view haploids as quantons which are mixtures of isons, isots, and isops. Using our entropa and cohera semantics we can view haploids as quantum mixtures of pos-, zero-, and neg-entropies...then as quantum mixtures of deco-, co-, and isoco-herencies. Our quantonic ellipses entail isot-entiveness which needs both zero and negentropic quantum fluxes. Negentropic quantum fluxes need ison-onpreferentialness.

Aside - 23-25Oct2006 - Update on Enthymemetics:

When Doug wrote this unique and provocative aside on quantum memes of partial puzzles, Doug did not know about enthymemes.

Enthymeme means 'partial logic.'

Classically, logic which is partial is absolutely incomplete. Classicists have historically deluded selves that partial logic is false (i.e., 'partial truth' as dialectically ideal absence of 'truth').

Quantumly, there issi n¤ such 'thing' as 'classical logic.' Quantum hermeneutics demand that all truthings are always quantum~partial. Quantum logic is an oxymoron. Instead we refer it "coquecigrues." All quanta ihn all quantum rælihty aræ 'fahctings' and 'truthings' absolutely and animately ihn quantum~pr¤cæssings of bæcomings: thus always partial.

Recently, we have emphasized to DMD extreme importance of quantum memes of partiality. If you read that link carefully, you may surmise how isoflux is quantum~essentially "unsaid flux." Flux is "said isoflux." Unsaid is what Bohm and Weber were intending when they discussed "silence" (nature likes to hide) in their Super Implicate Order Dialogue.

Recall Bergson's view of reality in its own evolutionary
progress, its own Creative Evolution. From any Bergsonian
complementarospective all process is in progress and always
partial when we compare its nowings to its potential futurings.

You now are partially who you will be tomorrow, and next day...

Doug - 24Oct2006.

We now fathom how quantum partiality reigns! All 'puzzles' are always partial, always "works in evolutionary progress."

Adjusting our phasements for local comtext, then haploids ova and spermatozoa are quantum enthymemes!

Too, re cognize learning itself as enthymemetic: always only partial. Geertz said it like this, "There is no everything to know." However, Geertz left unsaid an enthymeme: 'know' is, know ledges are, always incomplete, and our descriptions of what we know and our know ledges are enthymemetic: they always leave more unsaid than said. All truth is an enthymeme, a work in progress! All fact is an enthymeme, a work in progress! Just like you! That folks is Gn¤stic Quantum Reality!

Gnostic Jesus, in his profundities to his disciples said it like this, "What shall you do?" to achieve your own quantum~redemptive martus aritos? (Some of you have been searching for <martus aritos>.):

It means, in Greek, personal action, personal doing,
personal pragma as personal witness and evidence of
one's personal gn¤stic pr¤cæss of achieving excellence.

Doug - 24Oct2006.

Those quotes benude another aspect of enthymemeticity as partial. Here we are uncloaking gnostic linguistic, semiotic, and hermeneutic stealth as "that which is interpreted and understood by some who are capable of, have qua to be, hearing." Gnostic topos offers three levels of understanding: hylic (lowest: material), psychic (middle: intellectual), and pneumatic (highest: spiritual). Our reference here is Elaine Pagels' The Johannine Gospel in Gnostic Exegesis. See her 'Glossary of Technical Greek Terms.'

Quantonics HotMeme™ Another very simple way of describing quantum partiality is, "What is unsaid is radically more important than what is said."™ All quantum descriptions can only be partial and their potential quantum~redemptive fullness exceeds their partiality. Quantonics HotMeme™.

That is a partial description of what Bohm meant by "Hologramic Reality," and what Doug, William James, and Boris Sidis mean by "Reserve Energy" and our descriptions of How to Tap Into Iht.

End aside - Update on Enthymemetics - Doug - 23-25Oct2006, 8-9Nov2006.

Students of Quantonics may want to ponder how our comma_no_space_ellipses beg quantum animacy and heterogeneity of choosings, chancings and changings (AKA ch3) cowithin potentially animate and heterogeneous quantum comtextings. An example of latter is in vitro vis-à-vis in situs, with animate heterogeneity of vitro and situs. Thence animacy and heterogeneity of haploids...

For fun try extending these metaphors to memeos of partial quantum coherence and isononpreferential quantum 'anti' gravity... (A quantum 'tell' of real antigravity is gravitational libration. How is that similar partial gravitational quantum coherence?)

Doug - 14Mar2004, rev'd October, 2006. Add choosings and changings links above - 28Mar2009 - Doug.

End aside - Doug - 1Apr2003.

All of nature is quantons. All quantons are quantum uncertain. All aggregations of quantons are quantum uncertain.

When one compares issues of classical problem-solving vis-à-vis quantum problem-solving, and when we add animacy to his quantum puzzle meme, Kuhn's quanton puzzle becomes a powerful tell of what future SOM/CR metadigm shifts to MoQ and accompanying pragmadigm shifts from 'normal' classical 'science' to quantum science will entail.

In our brief puzzle side adventure, we wanted to offer a possible future perspective by extending Kuhn's own prescient thoughts. End SoSR Partial Puzzle, "What's Unsaid," HotMeme™.

Kuhn's 1969 Postscript — our review:

Seven years after SoSR was originally published, Kuhn tells us that his views remain essentially unchanged, despite intervening years and comments from both critics and supporters. He breaks his postscript up into seven subsections like this:

  1. Paradigms and Community Structure
  2. Paradigms as the Constellation of Group Commitments
  3. Paradigms as Shared Examples
  4. Tacit Knowledge and Intuition
  5. Exemplars, Incommensurability and Revolutions
  6. Revolutions and Relativism
  7. The Nature of Science

We order our review comments of his postscript following his topic outline.

  1. Paradigms and Community Structure

    Kuhn claims that Paradigms and Community Structure are separate concepts and should not commingle in minds of scientists and scientific historians. He claims they, like everything else in science, must be analytically separated.

    Throughout his book Kuhn uses 'circularity' to describe arguments which offer paradice in minds of their beholders. He tells us that some circular arguments are worse than others and calls them "vicious." To most 'scientists' paradoxical (self-referent) circular arguments are always classically false (Mediaevalist Jean Buridan was first to claim all sophisms FALSE, as self-contradictory.). However, in quantonics, we know that those structures are quantum sophisms, n¤t classically perceived circularities. As such they are quantons, n¤t just classical 'objects,' of reality. In quantonics, whenever we see a classicist use 'circularity' as a means of falsifying an argument, we recognize immediately a quantum tell.

    Aside:
      In this case we also see a classicist using nature to falsify herself (see Jastrow, Resnikoff, Frisby, et al. E.g., 'scientists' attempt to eliminate illusions, circularities, paradoxes, et al., as "wrong," rather than viewing them as natural). In essence, classical science declares itself dichotomously "right," and nature "wrong." As a result we see Kuhn's "normal" classical 'science' as 'scientific' arrogance.
    End aside.

    Kuhn starts out offering a quantumesque description of interrelationships of Paradigms and Community Structure, and then goes on to draw SOM's analytic knife from its scabbard and cut their quantum interrelationships away. That is what all good SOMites do to nature. That is what modern, "normal," classical 'science' does to nature. Here we quote exactly Kuhn's quantumesque description and his subsequent immediate wield of SOM's knife:

    Quantumesque description - "The term 'paradigm' enters the preceding pages early, and its manner of entry is intrinsically circular [i.e., quantum both/and self-referent]. A paradigm is what the members of a scientific community share, and, conversely, a scientific community consists of [people] who share a paradigm." P. 176. (Our brackets to comment and then to eliminate gender bias.)

    Wield of SOM's knife (AKA Ockham's razor - 20Dec2001 Doug.) - "…Scientific communities can and should be isolated without prior recourse to paradigms; the latter can then be discovered by scrutinizing the behavior of a given community's members." P. 176.

    Former makes quantum sense. Latter is typical classically dichotomous Boole. Latter statement says a community can isolate itself from paradigms and then scrutinize members' behaviors. But to scrutinize members' behaviors a community requires a paradigm. Paradigms and communities are quantum n¤nseverable. Paradigms provide any community's local concord which permits it to — locally, intra-paradigm — more consistently scrutinize and then assess members' behaviors.

    SOM's Boole is silly and detrite. Kuhn was trapped by critics who used SOM Boole to force a silly response by Kuhn. "Normal" science wants to stay in SOM's paradigmatic box. Any abnormal scientists must be forced back into SOM's box, else they shall be rejected by said 'scientific' community, and called: "...deconstructionists, charlatans, insane, nuts, weirdoes, fruitcakes, etc." Our opinion. (Doug - 9Aug2001)

    Postscript Index

  2. Paradigms as the Constellation of Group Commitments

    Kuhn's purpose in this postscript topic is to answer a question, "What can paradigms possibly be?" P. 181. That question leads to another, "What do members share…that accounts for the relative unanimity of their professional judgments?" P. 182.

    Kuhn builds a case for members sharing of what he calls a "disciplinary matrix." We also see him implying "matrix of common disciplines." Then he lists said matrix's dominant components like this:
     
    • Symbolic generalizations,
    • Relatively heuristic and other, metaphysical parts and shared models of paradigms,
    • Values (mostly quantitative predictions — which classically offer most to unify said community), and
    • Exemplars (prior 'valid' normal scientific success), plus
    • Others unspecified by Kuhn.

    One of Kuhn's most provocative statements in this postscript topic is his, "Imagine what would happen in the sciences if consistency ceased to be a primary value." P. 186.

    Kuhn's focus on "inconsistency" here is a dead give away that Kuhn's doctrine of paradigms and paradigm shifting is little more than quantum island hopping. In quantonics we know that reality is quantum islandic. Each island's local paradigm is intra-island more consistent, but multiversally very inconsistent. See our Absoluteness as Quantum Uncertainty. This quantumesque view elicits, "N¤ paradigm is general," and "All paradigms are specific."

    Viewing Kuhn's paradigms as quantum islands shows us how parochial and provincial "normal" science really is. Even more it displays "normal" science's hubris and arrogance in claiming that it can know and describe all reality via local "rules, definitions, laws, and tautologies." We think, our inheritors shall, indeed, laugh.

    Postscript Index

  3. Paradigms as Shared Examples

    Kuhn distills this postscript topic by saying that paradigms use exemplars to help members of a community learn how to "do" science rather than simply following step-by-step recipes. In a sense, Kuhn is saying that "normal" science is not just making and baking bread, rather it is paradigmatically using shared examples in a process of discovering bread. He says that is what is classically novel about his description of science as a series of paradigm shifts.

    Readers must note how little is said about individual human ingenuity thus far, except that it is "inexplicable." Kuhn emphasizes Michael Polanyi's phrase "tacit knowledge" to illustrate how paradigms and their shared examples endow "normal" scientists with something akin scientific intuition. I.e., paradigm and shared examples — when practiced by "normal" scientists in "doing" science — emanates "tacit knowledge." We agree, but qualify that individual human ingenuity is intuition's more essential ingredient, vis-à-vis paradigms and shared examples which may only non-uniquely assist (i.e., offer only intra-paradigm assistance) in arousing intuition among classically paradigm-cloned 'scientists.' Regardless, we have now admitted how important nature's subjectivity really is to any ethical practice of science. Kuhn addresses that issue in his next and longest postscript topic.

    Postscript Index

  4. Tacit Knowledge and Intuition

    Normal 'science' (whatever that means) declares all subjective thought irrational. Note normal 'science's' clear assumption, and thence an edict, that nature is classically rational. That means nature is radically formal or radically mechanistic. We and others have shown rather effectively, here in Quantonics and elsewhere, that quantum nature is n¤t classically rational. Quantum nature is included-middle both/and objective/subjective! To deny that is to deny nature. Yet most of Western culture's sciences today at Millennium III's commencement do deny that. Normal 'science' wants nature to be rational. Therefore they insist that nature is classically rational.
      Who is correct? Today's science? Nature?
    Who decides? Today's science? Nature?
    Who is arrogant? Today's science? Nature?

    Sadly Kuhn, again, allows his critics to shove him back into SOM's box, "First, if I am talking at all about intuitions, they are not individual." That is they are SOM's boxed-in intuitions: the paradigm and its disciplinary matrix. Sounds like a Pirsigean "church of reason" to us. Does it to you?

    This postscript topic is very long, and we see Kuhn wobbling back and forth twixt subjectivity versus objectivity and attempting to ameliorate his critics. In a sense of his agreeing both with subjectivists and with objectivists he succeeds. In a sense of unifying them in quantum fashion, we think he gets close, but just as he does in his original SoSR text — still quantum essence lies just beyond reach — as it naturally should.

    Allow us to take an approach similar to that in postscript topic 1, and quote several alternating paragraphs, and then show their classical vis-à-vis quantum differences:

    Given two different groups' or societies' differing perspectives of very similar stimuli —

    More quantumesque Kuhn: "Notice now that two groups, the members of which have systematically different sensations on receipt of the same stimuli, do in some sense live in different worlds." P. 193.

    SoSR HotMeme™: More classical Kuhn: "We posit the existence of stimuli to explain our perceptions of the world, and we posit their immutability to avoid both individual and social solipsism. About neither posit have I the slightest reservation." P. 193. For readers who may be confused about what that sentence means, we need to know what classicists mean when they use 'solipsism.' Rigidly, it means: "self is the only reality." If all of us are unique selves, then each of those unique selves may have (potentially) a unique view of reality. Classical science depends upon all its constituents sharing a 'common' view of reality. Else, classical science is neutered in any sense of paradigm. Most classicists see social solipsism as social relativism. Many solipsists share many views and interpretations of reality. Thus, it may be obvious why Kuhn makes his statement above so forcefully. Doug - 11Nov2001.

    Reviewer comment:

    To Kuhn and some other classicists solipsism is subjectivism! Where individual minds can change subjectively, classical objects are innately incapable of change. Kuhn unambiguously declares himself a classicist here, a SOMite. These words are n¤t words of CR n¤r words of more quantum MoQ. CR declares all reality is many excluded-middle individual and social solipsists each with its own relative classical perspectives! MoQ declares all reality is many included-middle islandic interrelationships which are in absolute quantum flux. In addition, MoQ allows quantum tentative persistence while denying SOM's absolute immutability. Our most potent philosophical point we wish to make on this quote is that classical immutability does n¤t avoid solipsism.

    Aside:

    Our bold above points directly at a major classical 'science' faux pas. If 'science's' insistence that immutability avoids both individual and social solipsism were 'correct,' what else would we have to posit? Let's see if we can ferret out some implicit classical 'science' assumptions which Kuhn appears to be making. If immutability of stimuli avoids social solipsism, what must Kuhn be assuming? Doesn't he have to assume that all individuals in a society sense stimuli identically? Further, doesn't he have to assume that, having sensed and acquired said stimuli, they interpret it identically? In order for them to do both, don't all members of that society have to be identical clones? Mustn't they share a paradigm of OGC and OGT?

    Do you know any two scientists who agree, identically, on one specific they see in nature? OK, do they agree about many? If those two scientists were to do independent experiments in two different loci, at two different times, and then, without knowledge of either's efforts, drafted reports, would their results be identical?

    Even given rigid, local, scientific paradigms, n¤ two scientists' intellectual repertoires can ever be identical. N¤r their vocabularies. N¤r their styles of writing and presentation. N¤r sets of experimental equipment, n¤r approaches, n¤r implicit and explicit assumptions, result interpretations, etc.

    Solipsism, either individual or social, is unavoidable! That is quantum reality! (We need to qualify these two statements. To us, quantum reality issi included-middle c¤mplementary interrelationships among many solipsists and their unlimited both actual and n¤nactual quantum c¤mplements. We can show this using our quantonic script:

    solipsist_aspect_of_quantum_realityquanton(n¤nactuality

    		 , quanton(actuality , many_solipsists)).

    |

    |

    quantum_reality's

    |

    /////included~\\\\\

    |
    		  middle

    (i.e., our
    Quantonics'
    comma
    n¤
    space)

    Another way to look at quantum real solipsism is to recognize that quantum reality offers n¤ concept of classical identity, i.e., n¤ two quantons in quantum reality are ever identical to one another. N¤ quanton is identical to itself longer than a Planck moment. In this very quantum sense, solipsism reigns. What mitigates solipsisms' illusory "classical ugliness" is a quantum reality that all quantons (, are capable, to) c¤mpenetrate, c¤-here, is¤-c¤-here, superpose, c¤-inside, super-luminate one another via n¤nactuality AKA Quantum Vacuum Flux. Again, we see what classicists call a "paradox:" both solipsism and its quantum c¤mplement, i.e., in our quantonic script, quanton(n¤t_solipsism,solipsism) together! Doug - 19Jan2002.)

    Then ask yourself, "How could scientists ever claim that posited 'immutability' avoids solipsism? Is nature immutable?" Classical 'normal science' assumes, "Yes."

    Doug - 31Oct2001.

    End aside.

    Reality n¤r n¤ne of its constituents is classically immutable. All reality to greater or lesser extent is in flux; faster or slower, always changing and changing all. As Henri Bergson teaches us, classicists' greatest errors of judgment are to assume tautologically both that reality is stable and that its constituents are independent. Bergson's brilliance denies both classical immutability and classicism's (attempted avoidance of) solipsism. Unfortunately, Kuhn has no reservations about their tautology and validity.

    End reviewer comment. SoSR HotMemes™


    More quantumesque Kuhn: "But our world is populated in the first instance not by stimuli but by the objects of our sensations, and these need not be the same, individual to individual or group to group. To the extent, of course, that individuals belong to the same group [have been intellectually cloned] and thus share education, language, experience, and culture, we have good reason to suppose that their sensations are the same. How else are we to understand the fulness [Kuhn's spelling.] of their communication and the communality of their behavioral responses to their environment? They must see things, process stimuli, in much the same ways. But where the differentiation and specialization of groups begins, we have no similar evidence for the immutability of sensation. Mere parochialism, I suspect, makes us suppose that the route from stimuli to sensation is the same for the members of all groups." P. 193. (Our brackets.)

    Reviewer comment:

    This looks very much like a quasi conversion of mindset from previous paragraph. Certainly we see CR here, which we underlined. And we see some quantum MoQ, or at least subtle hints of it here, which we emboldened.

    End reviewer comment.


    More classical Kuhn: "Returning now to exemplars and rules…One of the fundamental techniques by which the members of a group, whether an entire culture or a specialists' sub-community within it, learn to see the same things when confronted with the same stimuli is by being shown examples of situations that their predecessors in the group have already learned to see as like each other and as different from other sorts of situations." Pp. 193-4.

    Reviewer comment:

    Reviewer comment - But then Kuhn leaps right back into SOM's church of reason, its intellectual detention center, its box of like-thing-king clones. We see normal science's primary goal of cloning its members' minds to all see nature objectively the same. Then all those members tell everyone else that their way is the only way to thingk! Ugh! Doug.

    End reviewer comment.


    These last few paragraphs and our comments depict, in our opinion, a microcosm of Kuhn's whole SoSR treatise. He straddles SOM, CR, and quantum MoQ; however he usually runs home to SOM. Had he not, his book likely would not have been published, and he would have been exorcised from normal 'science' as a charlatan and misfit gone awry. There is much more here than we can possibly cover. You may wish to read this topic for yourself and see how closely you c¤mplement and commingle our own quantonics assessment.

    Postscript Index

  5. Exemplars, Incommensurability and Revolutions

    Revolutions are how we change paradigms, how we accomplish paradigm shifts. In order to make a paradigm shift possible, many people have to be converted to a new paradigm.

    Trouble is, a new paradigm and an old paradigm are incommensurable. Incommensurable paradigms have their own jargon unique to their paradigm. Thus individuals from separate paradigms have no means of 'unambiguous' communication to help them understand and assess differences in paradigms to allow them to make choices.

    Kuhn says that a solution is to use time consuming translation. Those who want to consider moving to a new paradigm must learn its language. But most are fearful of this translation process. So only fearless pioneers, and younger folk without legacy constraints, and people from entirely different life arenas tend to undergo this translation process and move forward, adopting a new paradigm and its r-evolution. Old soldiers simply fade into positive entropy. Eventually most practitioners end up in a new paradigm, quiescently adhering its new inquisitionist "disciplinary matrix."

    Postscript Index

  6. Revolutions and Relativism

    Consider Kuhn's starting paragraph of this topic, "One consequence of the position just outlined has particularly bothered a number of my critics. They find my viewpoint relativistic, particularly as it is developed in the last section of this book. My remarks about translation highlight the reasons for the charge. The proponents of different theories are like the members of different language-culture communities. Recognizing the parallelism suggests that in some sense both groups may be right. Applied to culture and its development that position is relativistic." P. 205.

    Kuhn subsequently declares that CR confuses sequential evolutionary paradigmatic views with momentary parallel relativistic views. We think this is a good classical argument, but its biggest threat is that it assumes time is analytic. And were we to run history past our eyes, say our last 2.5 millennia, like a film speeded up dramatically, which allowed us to see scientific 'progress' in just a couple of minutes, would we see much difference between CR's parallel views and SOM's sequential ones? From our MoQ/quantum/quantonics perspective, parallelism vis-à-vis sequentialism are both relative concepts when viewed classically. Our quantonics view of r-evolution is one of novel quantum emergence which we call emerscenture and is very different vis-à-vis Kuhn's apparent descriptions of normal 'science's' incremental objective manufacturing of paradigms.

    Kuhn also points out quite cogently that science's sequential paradigms all experienced differing environmental contexts where CR's momentary parallel views share one context. This is provocative to us. We see science's overriding metadigm as fundamental SOM concepts. To us, these form science's formal context, and it has changed little in 2.5 millennia. Witness our connections: SOM Connection, Aristotle Connection, Sophism Connection, Quantum Connection, etc. In our view science needs a metadigm shift from SOM to MoQ/quantum!

    Postscript Index

  7. SoSR HotMeme™: The Nature of Science

    Kuhn is unambiguous. The nature of science is to choose a paradigm/box and stay in it, and punish those who stray.

    Kuhn uses this topic to answer critics who were uneasy with his constant alternations twixt normative and descriptive discussion. He waxes philosophic re: 'is' and 'should,' etc.

    Our view is that we can only describe nature. Our best description of nature is to say that it is animate and always more or less uncertain. Any 'science' which does n¤t admit that, in our opinion, is n¤t a science worthy of that noble and shining appellation. All classical definitions of/about nature are immutable and thus unnatural. All classical tautologies about nature are classically impossible because they are innately inanimate and nature is absolutely animate. Seen from a perspective of a quantum pragmadigm, all tautologies are animate and self-referent and thus admit their own intrinsic quantum sophism. Thus to describe nature well our descriptions must be animate, our semiotics must be animate, our language must be animate, our thinking must be animate, etc. From our view normal modern 'science' is radically inanimate, and thus innately incapable of any valid descriptions of reality. Modern Western culture lives in an artificial, "uni-time is motion," classical box. To describe nature well (better) we need to learn how to emerse animations of reality during Millennium III. Indeed, we shall! Indeed, we are — see our Darwin's Chip review.

    For us, this phrase, "The Nature of Science," in his topic title, taken classically, is an oxymoron. Modern 'science' as we see it is unnatural. It is anthropocentric, and tied to radically mechanistic concepts of a manufactured pseudo reality which is certainly unnatural. To us modern 'science' is:
     
    • closed (JC Maxwellian conservative),
    • combative/defensive (wars with its critics, calls them charlatans, calls their critics' percepts "absurd, nonsense, unreasonable, contradictory, false, ridiculous, etc."),
    • manufactured (via paradigms, analytic methods, etc.),
    • fundamental (more fundamental than fundamental religionists whom it fears and despises),
    • non general (though it claims generality as its ultimate goal),
    • etc. (our extended list is very, very long) SoSR HotMemes™


    Postscript Index

We hope you gained much value from our efforts to review Kuhn's SoSR.

Thanks for reading,

Doug - 10Aug2001.

Notes:
 
Note 1 - Paraphrased quote inferred from Eugen Herrigel's Zen in the Art of Archery.
Note 1 Return
—
Note 2 - Paraphrased quote inferred from Robert M. Pirsig's Zen and the Art of Motorcycle Maintenance, Lila, SODV, and various letters of correspondence twixt Pirsig and Doug..
Note 2 Return
—
Note 3 - Paraphrased quote from Thomas Kuhn's The Structure of Scientific Revolutions, 1969 Postscript, topic 1, p. 176, para. 1, sentences 1 & 2.
Note 3 Return
—
Note 4 - Kuhn often refers our more quantum "c¤mplementary analogies" as classically "subjective circularities." Consider how classical science's 'contradiction' and 'falsifiability' are circular processes (i.e. trueófalse; not_falseófalse; trueónot_true), depending upon subjective classical negation.)
Note 4 Return
—
Note 5 - Kuhn calls this, "development by accumulation" and "development by accretion."
Note 5 Return
—
Note 6 - In Quantonics, Kuhn's "normal science" corresponds to what students of Quantonics call "SOM." By affinity students of Quantonics deny CR as anything more than "normal science" with simple plurality and incommensurable and contrafactual definite polylogical extensions. CR is still, most fundamentally and especially through its adherences to Aristotelian syllogisms (especially his 'law' of excluded-middle), SOMitic. But it is worthwhile, readers, for you to note how large an impact CR's minimal extensions to SOM had on defenders of SOM's Cathedral of Analytic Reason. Those minor extensions are source and agency of what Westerners today call "The Culture Wars!" That same set of differences are also source and agency of "The Science Wars," and "The Fundamentalist Wars." You may now see why we want to show you — as many of you as possible — a new way of thinking.
Note 6 Return
—
Note 7 - In Quantonics, Kuhn's "extraordinary science" corresponds slightly to what students of Quantonics call "MoQ." We say "slightly" since his "extraordinary science" only glimmers a few quantum memes, while entirely missing crucial quantum memes. See our MoQ, CR & SOM philosophies compared.
Note 7 Return
—
Note 8 - There is an autistic analogue of our heuristic here, and a narcolepsy version also. Try developing those analogues yourself. For stimulus see our quantum stairs.
Note 8 Return


 

To contact Quantonics write to or call:

Doug Renselle
Quantonics, Inc.
Suite 18 #368 1950 East Greyhound Pass
Carmel, INdiana 46033-7730
USA
1-317-THOUGHT

©Quantonics, Inc., 2001-2012 — Rev. 30Nov2009  PDR — Created: 13Aug2001  PDR
(18Aug2001 rev - Add anchor to Kuhn's quantum avatars.)
(27Aug2001 rev - Add schizophrenia link to Hesse's schizophrenia quote in Stairs...Perception...Quantum Stages.)
(28Aug2001 rev - Correct some typos. Add some relevant/helpful links.)
(18Sep2001 rev - Add 'cause-effect' link to our August, 2001 QQA on that topic. Add page top Geertz quote.)
(18Sep2001 rev - Add Steppenwolf link to 'humans are schizophrenic.' Add Note 6 link to our quantum stairs page.)
(19Sep2001 rev - Add two new endnotes.)
(17Oct2001 rev - Add 'paradigm axiomatic theory' phrase to "no falsifying experiences exist...")
(17Oct2001 rev - Change "N¤ two Gestalts..." to "N¤ Gestalt's figure and ground..." Add Gestalt quanton description.)
(17Oct2001 rev - Add links to our Quantum Connection and Sophism Connection. Several minor typos and grammar changes.)
(31Oct2001 rev - Add solipsism aside. Subsequent minor edits to it.)
(2Nov2001 rev - Commence Quantonics use of HotMemes™. Add 1969 Postscript Index and links.)
(9Nov2001 rev - Add CR and Postscript links and extend some text in Kuhn's Quantum Avatars HotMeme™.)
(11Nov2001 rev - Typos. Add clarifying sentences to our Immutability & Solipsism HotMeme™.)
(14Nov2001 rev - Bold red quote Kuhn's absence of reservation about Immutability & Solipsism.)
(15Dec2001 rev - Add top of page frame-breaker.)
(20Dec2001 rev - Add link to our humor page: A Kyoto Accord. Add "evolving" comment.)
(14Jan2002 rev - Repair grammar in 'Apprisals,' and add 'complementarity' link and parentheticals in red text.)
(19Jan2002 rev - Qualify our Immutability & Solipsism HotMeme™.)
(19Jan2002 rev - Remediate occurrences of 'complement' to 'c¤mplement.')
(2Feb2002 rev - "Typos" due to above 'revision.' Ugh!)
(12Feb2002 rev - Extend our Schizophrenic Science HotMeme™ using Pirsig's quotes on insanity.)
(28Feb2002 rev - Add link to How to Become a Student of Quantonics.)
(25Mar2002 rev - Repair Note 5 Return/anchor.)
(2Jun2002 rev - Add link to our newly completed review of Bergson's Time and Free Will.)
(2Jul2002 rev - Add missing Classical Static Optimisms HotMeme™.)
(15Jul2002 rev - Extend comments on 'incommensurability' as a 'cultural relativisim' analogue.)
(23Jul2002 rev - Change QELR links to A-Z pages.)
(4Sep2002 rev - Add an anchor to our comments on paradigmatic scientific role playing.)
(4Sep2002 rev - Add an anchor to our comments on paradigmatic scientific hubris.)
(4Oct2002 rev - Add more links to our list of 'Kuhn's crown jewels of paradigm shifts.')
(4Oct2002 rev - Add QTP link to Immutability & Solipsism HotMeme™.)
(24Feb2003 rev - Add anchor to Kuhn's original discussion of incommensurability.)
(1-2Apr2003 rev - Add aside on human reproduction as a metaphor of Kuhn's double puzzle.)
(1-2Apr2003 rev - Add anchor to Kuhn's puzzle text and our update aside.)
(20Jul2003 rev - Upgrade How to Become A Student of Quantonics links to new separate web page.)
(11Dec2003 rev - Add 'does not aim at novelties of fact' bullet item link to our QELR of 'fact.')
(30Dec2003 rev - Add 'thingk' link.)
(3Jan2004 rev - Add anchor to Kuhn's double puzzle meme.)
(14Mar2004 rev - Reset legacy red text. Extend quantum puzzle metaphor. Improve some tabular formatting.)
(27Mar2004 rev - Add link to Bases of Judgment. Add red text note on 'avatar.')
(18May2004 rev - Repair unintentionally QELRed links just above Kuhn's avatars.)
(5Nov2004 rev - Reset red text. Repair some ill table formatting.)
(24Jan2005 rev - Add linguistic meiosis comment under Kuhn's puzzle.)
(10,13Apr2006 rev - Add a 'Success and Failure' anchor. Respell 'Resnikoff.' Respell 'right.')
(21,23-25Oct2006 rev - Adjust color. Add puzzle update on 'enthymemetics.' Add 'Martus Aritos' anchor.)
(9Nov2006 rev - Add 'Partial Puzzle' HotMeme™. Add 'Quantum~Partiality' anchor to 'Partial Puzzle' HotMeme™.)
(20Apr2007 rev - Reset legacy red text. Adjust some formating slightly.)
(11Sep2007 rev - Typo.)
(28Feb2008 rev - Reformat slightly. Add enthymeme discussion link to Pagels' TJGiGE.)
(8Jan2009 rev - Add links to our QELR of 'uncertain,' and our more recent QELR of 'occur.' Make page current.)
(28Mar2009 rev - Change wingding fonts to gifs. Add 'choosings' and 'changings' links under 'enthymemetics.' Add 'evolve' link.)
(30Nov2009 rev - Make page current. Reset legacy markups.)
(26Mar2014 rev - Add commentary under 'Classical Static Optimisms' re Antinomialismq over Oppositionc. Add Antinomialism Over Opposition anchor.)

Arches