Saturday, March 3, 2007
My Favorite Blogs
Look, this isn't the only blog there is. In fact, it is a rather insignificant speck of protoplasm in the great blogsphere that lies out there. So we honor our sibling blogs, and point you to what is happening there. Only the best blog threads are to be cited or invited.
Iraqi Outrages
This is the place to talk about the War in Iraq. No matter what side you take, it is outrageous. Marques of Queensbury rules in effect.
The Continuing Crisis (in the Anglican Communion)
This is the place to talk about Primates, and Schism and Lawsuits (Oh My !!) Post what you like but try to stay focused. I'll be sending out encyclicals from time to time.
Paradigm Shifts and Revolutions in Military Affairs
Thoughts below are extracted from the Maneuver Warfare list on Yahoo. I guess it is okay if I plagiarize myself to get this blog up and going.
Military science is, especially in American hands, "tempted to pragmatism". Kuehn's insights on the history of science are undeniably interesting. But I would suggest that we are overly embellishing the argument by assailing all systematic thought in the arena of military affairs with mumbo jumbo about "paradigm shifts". One of the critiques of Kuehn's work cited 21 distinct variations in his use of the term "paradigm"; the author of this critique was one Margaret Masterman, a student of Wittgenstein and a pioneer in the area of computational linguistics. I would be very grateful to anyone who could actually find an open source digital copy of this paper, which was written IIRC, in 1965. From long association with the US military, it is my view that what Charles Peirce conceived as "abductive reasoning" or "inference to the best explanation" is the underlying means by which hypotheses are formed in what we may refer to as military science. See the following Wikipedia article:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inference_to_the_Best_Explanation
When one considers the milieu of military theory, it readily apparent why abductive reasoning, which is formally flawed logic, the specific fallacy being that of "affirming the consequent", is a primary means by which soldiers evolve new methods, what we lovingly refer to as "tactics, techniques, and procedures". When sample sizes are large and mathematically tractable, induction is indeed possibly. But these conditions do not hold on an emerging battlefield, nor are they, to my great sadness, often achievable in battle labs, either. One is left, therefore, with a set of experiences, however gathered, from which one forms hunches. Once these hunches have become formalized into authoritative doctrine promulgated by the official magisterium of the Armed Forces, they now become the subject matter of "military science". Now, this probably sounds harsher than I truly intend...in this case, even bad science is better than no science at all. Under Soviet rule, the Russians strove mightily to make their military doctrine "scientific", as good Marxists and positivist intellectuals ought to, always and everywhere. The results, while quite elegant in many respects, were also meager in distinguishably superior results. The Soviets should have realized that abduction is the more democratic way of thinking, but the advantage of methodological rigor is that one can baseline one's military doctrine, and subject it to only incremental change, rather than throw the baby out with the bathwater, go back to the whiteboard, and do it all from scratch based on the most recent lessons learned, as the pragmatic Americans do, what with their paradigm shifts, and never-ceasing dogma mills. If nothing else, Americans will never be bested in getting product out the door.Interestingly, not only does Peirce claim that the ability to reason abductively is a result of human evolution,
http://user.uni-frankfurt.de/~wirth/inferenc.htm
http://www.uni-bielefeld.de/idm/personen/mhoffman/papers/abduction-logic.html
it may also be said that the Darwinian theory of evolution itself is an example of abduction at work.
http://www.helsinki.fi/science/commens/papers/abductionstrategies.htmlhttp://orange.eserver.org/issues/6-1/graham.html
Military science is, especially in American hands, "tempted to pragmatism". Kuehn's insights on the history of science are undeniably interesting. But I would suggest that we are overly embellishing the argument by assailing all systematic thought in the arena of military affairs with mumbo jumbo about "paradigm shifts". One of the critiques of Kuehn's work cited 21 distinct variations in his use of the term "paradigm"; the author of this critique was one Margaret Masterman, a student of Wittgenstein and a pioneer in the area of computational linguistics. I would be very grateful to anyone who could actually find an open source digital copy of this paper, which was written IIRC, in 1965. From long association with the US military, it is my view that what Charles Peirce conceived as "abductive reasoning" or "inference to the best explanation" is the underlying means by which hypotheses are formed in what we may refer to as military science. See the following Wikipedia article:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inference_to_the_Best_Explanation
When one considers the milieu of military theory, it readily apparent why abductive reasoning, which is formally flawed logic, the specific fallacy being that of "affirming the consequent", is a primary means by which soldiers evolve new methods, what we lovingly refer to as "tactics, techniques, and procedures". When sample sizes are large and mathematically tractable, induction is indeed possibly. But these conditions do not hold on an emerging battlefield, nor are they, to my great sadness, often achievable in battle labs, either. One is left, therefore, with a set of experiences, however gathered, from which one forms hunches. Once these hunches have become formalized into authoritative doctrine promulgated by the official magisterium of the Armed Forces, they now become the subject matter of "military science". Now, this probably sounds harsher than I truly intend...in this case, even bad science is better than no science at all. Under Soviet rule, the Russians strove mightily to make their military doctrine "scientific", as good Marxists and positivist intellectuals ought to, always and everywhere. The results, while quite elegant in many respects, were also meager in distinguishably superior results. The Soviets should have realized that abduction is the more democratic way of thinking, but the advantage of methodological rigor is that one can baseline one's military doctrine, and subject it to only incremental change, rather than throw the baby out with the bathwater, go back to the whiteboard, and do it all from scratch based on the most recent lessons learned, as the pragmatic Americans do, what with their paradigm shifts, and never-ceasing dogma mills. If nothing else, Americans will never be bested in getting product out the door.Interestingly, not only does Peirce claim that the ability to reason abductively is a result of human evolution,
http://user.uni-frankfurt.de/~wirth/inferenc.htm
http://www.uni-bielefeld.de/idm/personen/mhoffman/papers/abduction-logic.html
it may also be said that the Darwinian theory of evolution itself is an example of abduction at work.
http://www.helsinki.fi/science/commens/papers/abductionstrategies.htmlhttp://orange.eserver.org/issues/6-1/graham.html
Fundamentalism as Paradigm
My unending project. Maybe someday it will be book
Thesis: That fundamentalism is an ideological paradigm which cannot be utilized in a value neutral manner, and that modern religious movements must be examined in an institutional framework, if value freedom is to be upheld.
I. Introduction
The term "paradigm" as applied to "fundamentalism" has an ironic dimension, for both terms evolved over the course of the 20th century in such a way that to use them in the same sentence is a linguistic anachronism. Just five years before the Fundamentals were written, the 1900 Merriam-Webster dictionary described "its technical use only in the context of grammar or, in rhetoric, as a term for an illustrative parable or fable". Thus, not only is the term "fundamentalism" a rhetorical symbol, so also is the term "paradigm"1. But to classify a rhetorical symbol as a "parable or fable" which by its own internal logic rejects the truth of fables remains an interesting twist. For among the core symbols of fundamentalism as explicated by real fundamentalists, and not those who simply write about fundamentalists, is the concept of presuppositions. A fundamentalist might well argue that the term paradigm itself betrays its own presuppositions through the logical history of its own symbology. The misapplication of both symbols, fundamentalism and paradigm, should not dissuade us of this insight.
Thomas Kuehn’s "Structure of Scientific Revolutions" attempts to revise the paradigmatic symbol into a term of science. Indeed, his description of a paradigm would not be unfamiliar to Aristotle, since it describes a paradigm as defining 1) what is to be observed, 2) the questions to be asked about the object of observation, 3) how such questions are structured, and 4) how one interprets the results of investigation. Fundamentalism, as with any system of theology or philosophy, must have all four elements of Kuehn’s paradigm. Since this study itself represents an exploration of fundamentalism as a paradigm, it would be appropriate from the outset to consider all four aspects of fundamentalism. How is it to be defined ? What questions are relevant to the exploration of fundamentalism, as paradigm ? Since, by now, it is understood that we are dealing with a paradigm within a paradigm, how should questions about fundamentalism be structured ? What, other than our own presuppositions about fundamentalism, do we have to guide our interpretation of the extant data about fundamentalism, in order to construct a coherent and reasonably accurate representation of the phenomena.
Regrettably, the vulgar use of the term fundamentalism has indeed created a kind of paradigmatic fable that must be examined, if only for the purpose of exposing its all-too-apparent logical and factual errors. This is the most obvious sense in which fundamentalism enters the stage in the guise of paradigm. For what many commentators do, in speaking to the topic of fundamentalism, is to describe conclusions as facts, and presuppositions as evidence of what fundamentalism is and what its systematic logic motivates human beings to do. Only a radical criticism will suffice to overcome the misapplication of rhetoric and misrepresentation of fact here.
Thesis: That fundamentalism is an ideological paradigm which cannot be utilized in a value neutral manner, and that modern religious movements must be examined in an institutional framework, if value freedom is to be upheld.
I. Introduction
The term "paradigm" as applied to "fundamentalism" has an ironic dimension, for both terms evolved over the course of the 20th century in such a way that to use them in the same sentence is a linguistic anachronism. Just five years before the Fundamentals were written, the 1900 Merriam-Webster dictionary described "its technical use only in the context of grammar or, in rhetoric, as a term for an illustrative parable or fable". Thus, not only is the term "fundamentalism" a rhetorical symbol, so also is the term "paradigm"1. But to classify a rhetorical symbol as a "parable or fable" which by its own internal logic rejects the truth of fables remains an interesting twist. For among the core symbols of fundamentalism as explicated by real fundamentalists, and not those who simply write about fundamentalists, is the concept of presuppositions. A fundamentalist might well argue that the term paradigm itself betrays its own presuppositions through the logical history of its own symbology. The misapplication of both symbols, fundamentalism and paradigm, should not dissuade us of this insight.
Thomas Kuehn’s "Structure of Scientific Revolutions" attempts to revise the paradigmatic symbol into a term of science. Indeed, his description of a paradigm would not be unfamiliar to Aristotle, since it describes a paradigm as defining 1) what is to be observed, 2) the questions to be asked about the object of observation, 3) how such questions are structured, and 4) how one interprets the results of investigation. Fundamentalism, as with any system of theology or philosophy, must have all four elements of Kuehn’s paradigm. Since this study itself represents an exploration of fundamentalism as a paradigm, it would be appropriate from the outset to consider all four aspects of fundamentalism. How is it to be defined ? What questions are relevant to the exploration of fundamentalism, as paradigm ? Since, by now, it is understood that we are dealing with a paradigm within a paradigm, how should questions about fundamentalism be structured ? What, other than our own presuppositions about fundamentalism, do we have to guide our interpretation of the extant data about fundamentalism, in order to construct a coherent and reasonably accurate representation of the phenomena.
Regrettably, the vulgar use of the term fundamentalism has indeed created a kind of paradigmatic fable that must be examined, if only for the purpose of exposing its all-too-apparent logical and factual errors. This is the most obvious sense in which fundamentalism enters the stage in the guise of paradigm. For what many commentators do, in speaking to the topic of fundamentalism, is to describe conclusions as facts, and presuppositions as evidence of what fundamentalism is and what its systematic logic motivates human beings to do. Only a radical criticism will suffice to overcome the misapplication of rhetoric and misrepresentation of fact here.
Starting Blog
To all my friends and enemies.
This is my very first blog and my very first attempt at a blog.
It is my hope that this will be a successful blog, and that it will be a place
that you find informative and controversial.
This is my very first blog and my very first attempt at a blog.
It is my hope that this will be a successful blog, and that it will be a place
that you find informative and controversial.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
