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
re: Kuhn and his momentous SoSR.
See our important Kuhn Puzzle
Review of Thomas Kuhn's The Structure of Scientific Revolutions
sample averaged from several pages is ~7%.
original, UChicP, 1996 3rd edition paper bound, 212
pages including index. -
9June2001 - 13August2001
By Doug Renselle
(Need wingdings font.)
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.
"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
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
of almost unlimited quantum c¤mplements: parallelism-sequentialism,
dynamis-persistence, pluralism-monism, subjectivism-objectivism,
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
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 -
Classical Static Optimisms
Kuhn's Quantum Avatars
Kuhn's Partial Puzzle, "What's
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:
- hints of his own partial self-extraction from classicism,
- recognition of parallel-pluralistic objective relativism's
profound win over sequential-monistic objective classicism, and
- 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
- Classical Subject-Object Metaphysics (SOM), metadigm for
- Cultural (objective) Relativism (CR), metadigm for relativistic
chaos science, and
- Quantum Philosophy (MoQ - Pirsig's Metaphysics of Quality),
metadigm for quantum science.
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:
- Own historians' and scientists' recordings and perspectives
of science history have misled us that science has grown steadily
and progressively more capable with time5.
- Own historians' and scientists' ideal perceptions and exegeses
are that science seeks scientific consensus for community coherence
and closest possible conformation with nature.
By contrast Kuhn says science's:
- Progress, rather, has been paradigmatic.
- Communities appear to hop from paradigm to paradigm, often
discarding prior paradigms' works as detritus. Kuhn makes a cogent
observation here that historians must choose an alternative that,
"Out of date theories (myths) are not in principle unscientific
because they have been discarded." Pp. 2-3. (Our parentheical.)
And that view leads to another choice of:
- a) scientific progress as paradigmatic, over
- b) scientific progress as gradual accretion of analytic methodology.
Not wholly friendly to scientists' egos, this perspective takes
us naturally to a Kuhnian image of science as an objective sequence
of paradigm shifts.
- Communities always replace a defective paradigm with one
they consider 'better.' "Let us, therefore, now take it
for granted that the differences between successive paradigms
are both necessary and irreconcilable." P. 103.
- Critics ask, "From whence a first paradigm?" Birth
of a community paradigm shift via a theory paradigm occurs,
"Only as experiment and tentative theory are together articulated
to a match
[then] does the discovery emerge and the theory
become a paradigm." P. 61. (Our ellipses and brackets.)
"Once a first paradigm through which to view nature has
been found, there is no such thing as research in the absence
of any paradigm." P. 79. Reader please note that in paragraph
one of his postscript he tells us that communities and paradigms
are classically separable and may be isolated once any paradigm
establishes itself. See p. 176. We found his apparent dyslexia
on this topic quite confusing and amusing. Perhaps he means there
are separate paradigms for scientific 'communities' and separate
paradigms for scientific 'research.' He did n¤t say that,
however, and if he had it would disagree with what follows.
- Communities consider "utmost scientific success"
their current paradigm's abilities to solve puzzles, whether
they align nature or n¤t.
- Paradigms are sets of accepted standards (axioms) for practice
within a discipline
- Paradigms are 'professionally scientific' boxes of en-closed
classically "insular" thinking
- Paradigms enforce scientific 'political correctness' (inferred);
paradigmatic 'political correctness' is any scientific community's
essential means of thought/behavior control which offers
implicit governmental/organizational control while a paradigm
remains in 'effect;' enforcement is via professional reputation
destruction and media ridicule via denigrating language, "
charlatan, occultist, new-ager, crazy, insane, nonsensical, absurd,
ridiculous, ludicrous, incredulous, equivocal, prevaricative,
- Paradigms are tentatively stable, and change under competitive
- Paradigms which do not
prepare scientists for serendipitous discovery of novel
phenomena need shifting
||(novel i.e., outside a paradigm's axiomatic/quantitative/linguistic/dogmatic
insular mythos simply, paradigms "outside a SOMitic
walled-in detention center of rational reason")
||(we infer this; he essentially describes this
as "investigator failure" an antecedent to "paradigm
failure" an antecdent to "paradigm shift")
- Paradigms change sequentially, via 'better' replacement axioms,
with some overlap
- Paradigm shifts are:
- both constructive (adoption of new theories)
- and destructive (dismissal/effacement of some legacy
- Innovation of a new paradigm usually requires individual,
not group, innovation, but
- Success (stable progress) of any paradigm depends upon a
group of concordant paradigm practitioners, where:
- During stable periods, followers adhere paradigm's first
- Periods of paradigm stability free scientists from worry
over first principles
- New paradigms efface old ones via new/next generation paradigmatic
- Without a group of follower-practitioners, no paradigm succeeds
- Success and overall scientific progress (i.e., "Shift")
to a new paradigm depends upon:
- Presence and growth of crises within old paradigm (old/current
paradigm confidence loss)
- Group view of old paradigm vis-à-vis reality
- Group view of new paradigm vis-à-vis reality
- Group view of new paradigm vis-à-vis old paradigm
- Whether new paradigm appears 'better' (Key questions:
Can this assessment be accomplished outside a paradigm, i.e.,
paradigm-free? Across paradigms? How?)
- Assessment of 'better' is all any paradigm can accomplish
(no paradigm is absolute)
- No new paradigm can ever "disprove" its antecedent
legacy paradigms (some may/do return to haunt)
- All winning paradigms attempt and somewhat accomplish effacement
of prior paradigm
- New paradigms are always specific and non-general, i.e.,
they just adopt a 'new' closed set of classical axioms
- Each new paradigm just places any practicing group of scientists
in that paradigm's box of axioms
- Some practitioners who adhere old, prior, or other paradigms
simply wane and wither away
- Summarily, on success of paradigm shifting as a means of
scientific progress, "We may, to be more precise, have to
relinquish the notion, explicit or implicit, that changes of
paradigm carry scientists and those who learn from them closer
and closer to the truth." P. 170. (Our italics.)
Kuhn uses two phrases rather consistently:
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):
- 'Understands' natural reality and assumes that it, "knows
what the world is like."
usually holds creative philosophy at arms length."
- Forces nature into conceptually constrained detention centers,
thus spawning its own implicit circularity of closed reason,
a reason untenable to those unwilling to run in that loop. P.
often suppresses fundamental novelties because
they are necessarily subversive of its basic commitments."
- Is tradition bound.
"Depends in part on a particular paradigm." P. 94.
"Without commitment to a paradigm there would be no normal
science." P. 100. "The normal-scientific tradition
that emerges from a scientific revolution is not only incompatible
but often actually incommensurable with that which has gone before."
Kuhn's use of 'incommensurable' is very interesting here.
From our quantonics perspective, incommensurability is a quantum tell. It is telling
us that all of classical science's various paradigms are just
countless legitimate but classically contrafactual definite
(culturally relative, and thus potentially incommensurable) views
of quantum reality. Extensibly, when classical science fails
to endow an even more fundamental quantumly contrafactual
definite digm/analogue of reality, it dooms classical science
to endless wasted pseudo 'scientific' efforts: "We're
always chasing para digms, every where we go
It becomes, just as Aristotle's "A=A," a classical
tautology, always wasting iterations restating a classically
apparent, massively pathological, self-deluding 'truth.' This
is classicism's deign of feign as Robert M. Pirsig warned
us a church of reason a trap!
HotMeme: Ask yourself a simple question. "If human
beings acted like science does, what would 'expert' scientists
say about them?" They would call those humans, "insane."
"But, but, but, how are they perceived as insane?"
Expert 'scientists' would tell you it is obvious those humans
are schizophrenic. They are living in more than one reality!
And worse, when they are in one of those realities, they
claim it is the only reality! Now, reader,
you should be able to conclude that "normal science"
is quintessentially insane given experts' testimonies
on human schizophrenia. However, we might conclude otherwise
that human schizophrenia is 'n¤t' scientific insanity,
rather only rapid sequential paradigm shiftings of human mind.
Is normal science's paradigm shifting more or less sane than
human schizophrenia? C¤mplementarily, mayhaps they
are both quantum tells of a much more encompassing metadigm or
Perhaps from now hence we should refer Kuhnian paradigm shifting
as "scientific schizophrenia
A Pirsigean aside:
"What the [schizophrenic psychiatric ward] patients showed
wasn't any one common characteristic but an absence of
one. What was absent was the kind of standard social role-playing
that "normal" people get into. Sane people don't realize
what a bunch of role-players they are, but the insane
see this role-playing and resent it." This quote is from
p. 334 of 410 total pages, of Robert M. Pirsig's Lila,
1991, Bantam 1st ed. (Our brackets.)
Try this, "[Normal scientists] don't realize what a bunch
of role-players they are, but [extraordinary scientists] see
this role-playing and resent it."
Pirsig's quote applies to classical science's Kuhnian paradigm
shifts, showing how scientific 'characteristics' change from
one classical paradigm to another, over and over...a kind of
serial schizophrenia. And 'normal,' 'sane' scientists are naught
but role-players being good citizens in science's most recent
paradigm. Those who refuse to play said paradigm's role are inarguably
'insane,' even 'schizophrenic,' from a paradigm's current local
perspective. But Kuhn has shown us, in spades, that science itself
is schizophrenic! And its normal-science-role-players still
have an arrogant paradigm-centric gall to call extraordinary
scientists 'insane.' Now whom should 'normal scientists'
denigrate "insane...?" But pots do not call themselves
"black" do they?
To read our quote of Pirsig's text on this subject as it applies
to psychiatric patients and doctors go here.
You will find it a powerful analogue of what this HotMeme
uncloaks. Doug - 12Feb2002.
End aside. SoSR HotMemes
- Classically inures scientific expectations, blinding 'scientists'
to novel phenomena, and restricting their anticipations of change
all of which ensures a current paradigm's momentum, protecting
it from unwanted change. Pirsig might say, "Static Quality
does not relinquish its staticity willingly to Dynamic Quality's
quantum stochastic animacy mandate."
- Classically complements (e.g., opposes; Niels Bohr's complementarity
is "exclusive") scientific r-evolutions.
- Is achievement based upon solution of puzzles. Kuhn captures
a most disgusting aspect of normal science's puzzle-solving thus,
"One of the reasons why normal science seems to progress
so rapidly is that its practitioners concentrate on problems
that only their own lack of ingenuity should keep them from solving."
P. 37 (Our italics.)
- Succeeds by matching known paradigm facts with paradigm predictions.
- Blinds itself to non paradigm-generated, paradigm-absent
phenomena. "Even the project whose goal is paradigm articulation
does not aim at the unexpected novelty." I.e., failure
is: not achieving said paradigm's anticipated outcome.
- Indeed 'normal' scientists can only see one way: that
one common, status quo, 'stay in our box,' way that they
have been very carefully taught to see 'scientifically.'
Kuhn says, "
the scientist does not preserve the Gestalt
subject's freedom to switch back and forth between ways of seeing."
P. 85. Kuhn goes on to say, "Nevertheless, the switch of
Gestalt, particularly because it is so familiar, is a useful
elementary prototype for what occurs in full-scale paradigm shift."
Gestalt, just like quantum reality, defies and denies classical
analyticity. Classical science simply will not work, simply is
not viable without analyticity. Yet classical 'normal science'
continues to stay in its box, its intellectual detention center,
its church of fundamental objective reason, even as and even
though it experiences chronic Gestalt paradigm shifts.
Quantum reality is Gestalt. We cannot see quantum
reality without thibediring
its Gestaltness. Denying quantum reality's Gestalt, normal science
denies quantum reality!
- In their attempts at interpretation, normal scientists, "
only articulate a paradigm, not correct it. Paradigms are not
corrigible by normal science at all." P. 122. Here, Kuhn
describes normal classical science's own, self-imposed self-entrapment.
To us, in quantonics, this is delicious!
- Finds extra-paradigm theory-invention intolerable, except
in crises when it "
loosens the rules for normal research."
P. 84. Reader, please consider how 'normal [classical] science'
cannot avoid eventual crises given its classical subject-object,
material/substance-based, Aristotelian/Newtonian foundations.
This, from our perspective, is what supports Kuhn's "paradigm
shifting" notions more than any other fundamental consideration.
Yet he never acknowledges this. In a way, Kuhn, like so many
other classicists is blindered to 'normal [classical] science's'
In quantonics we see metadigm shifting occurring on top of Kuhn's
intra-SOM paradigm shifts. We are near an end of a metadigm shift
from SOM to CR. Already,
we are commencing early stages of a next metadigm shift from
CR to MoQ. Major intra-MoQ changes we call "pragmadigm
- Finds few natural comparisons of normal sciences' theoretical
models, especially comparisons to mathematical models. P. 26.
This is another quantum tell. Nature is n¤t classically
- Is a determined process vis-à-vis nature is
quantum uncertain nature offers only quantum ensemble
determinism which is intrinsically uncertain.
- Is not necessarily a process entirely determined by rules
(rather by paradigms and overlapping paradigms). More specifically
Kuhn writes, "That is why at the start of this essay, I
introduced shared paradigms rather than shared rules, assumptions,
and points of view as the source of [classical] coherence for
normal research traditions. Rules, I suggest, derive from paradigms,
but paradigms can guide research even in the absence of rules."
P. 42. (Our brackets.) And, "Normal science can proceed
without rules only so long as the relevant scientific community
accepts without question the particular problem-solutions already
achieved." P. 47. Quantum uncertainty denies Kuhn's phrase
accepts without question
" Absolute problem-solutions
are impossible in quantum reality! We can always create a real
quantum context where we can invalidate a previous classical
problem-solution. Without invoking quantum thinking, we can defer
to Gödel: absoluteness of a problem solution requires
simultaneity of both consistency and completeness. Gödel's
Incompleteness Theorems show us that n¤ problem solution
may be both consistent and complete simultaneously. See our Absoluteness as Uncertainty.
does not aim at novelties of fact or theory and,
when successful, finds none." P. 52. We find this an utterly
disgusting aspect of "normal science." This is what
Pirsig calls a "scientific platypus." It is a kind
of Ultimate Scientific Arrogance in our opinion. It assumes a
chosen normal scientific paradigm is Gödelian consistent
and complete! Rather all normal scientific paradigms will always
have emerging novelties of fact.
We call them memes! Any good paradigm emerses more novel memes
than its contenders! We need a novel metadigm: discard
"normal science" and commence practicing "extraordinary
science" ceaselessly. Doug - 24Jul2001.
Extraordinary Science (paradigm-shifting science):
- Seriously questions and reevaluates 'accepted fundamentals.'
- Anticipates transition, anticipates change. (Reader, consider
how classical, 'normal science' fights tooth and nail any kind
of alterations to its paradigm.)
- Converts anomaly into tentative law.
- Leaps out of previous paradigm's (i.e., normal science's)
intellectual prison. Is fundamentally antithetical normal science
in its acceptance of anomalies as expected phenomena.
- Turns to philosophy. "It is no accident that the emergence
of Newtonian physics in the seventeenth century and of relativity
and quantum mechanics in the twentieth should have been both
preceded and accompanied by fundamental philosophical analyses
of the contemporary research tradition." P. 88.
- Applies [concrete, physical, indeed physi-al] thought
experiment to crises' insolubles. "As I have shown elsewhere,
the analytical thought experimentation that bulks so large in
the writings of Galileo, Einstein, Bohr, and others is perfectly
calculated to expose the old paradigm to existing knowledge in
ways that isolate the root of crisis with a clarity unattainable
in the laboratory." P. 88.
- Is both evolutionary and revolutionary.
- Etc. SoSR HotMemes
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
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
animate, modalities pragmadigmatic overviews and active
- applied paradigms,
- choices of replacement paradigms, and thence quantum egress
- ascension from normal science's paradigms to more highly
evolved metadigms of pragmadigms,
of which this suggested approach is prototypical.
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:
- from - classically schizophrenic sequences of crisis-driven
- to - relentless pragmadigmatic evolution of metadigms.
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
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.
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:
- Analysis (exists;
assumes reality is analytic; assumes reality may be stopped/started;
assumes differential/integral calculus depicts real parts and
(exists; assumes reality conserves; mandates closure of reality;
Maxwellian entropy; etc.)
(exists; assumes negation is objective; assumes negation is radically
Schrödinger_cat_1 minus Schrödinger_cat_2 equals zero/null.)
- Control ('normal'
scientists must think as much alike as possible; scientific method
depends upon proof and, "If we do not all agree then we
can never achieve 'proof;'" "Without scientific consensus
we shall experience real chaos!" Hmmm
- Convention (exists; paradigms are conventional; assumes
paradigms are unilogical; scientific 'convenience,' etc.)
("Reality is logical. We can make either true or false statements
about material reality." Etc.)
- Effect (exists;
one cause; one effect; cause-effect;
analytic induction; etc.)
- Equality (exists;
assumes two physical objects may be identical to one another;
- Falsifiability (exists;
see Contradiction, Proof, Dichotomy, Equality, Logic;
- Force (exists; force is an analytic, causal interactive
effect between classical point objects; etc.)
- Identity (exists;
assumes (you minus you) =
null/zero; assumes (yout1 minus yout2)
= null/zero; etc.)
- Linearity (exists; assumes real processes may be linear/sequential
with one master clock's time; etc.)
- Logic (exists;
Aristotelian syllogisms; radically formal logic; Boolean logic;
predicate calculus, etc.)
- Mechanics (exist;
assume reality is mechanical; assume reality is radically formal,
- Motion (exits; assumes formal unitemporal motion is a proxy
for real change; etc.)
- Object (exists;
assumes reality is objective based upon Aristotelian
material substance, etc.)
(scientists can classically, unilaterally observe material objects
which "hold still" during observation, etc.)
- One (exists; assumes concept
'one' exists; "one set of first principles;" etc.;
see our quantum_1.)
- Prediction (exists;
classical reality is analytically inductive;)
- Proof (exists;
classical contradiction and falsifiability are adequate
to achieve scientific methodical proof; etc.)
- Quantity (exists;
classical reality is a measurable,
quantitative reality; etc.)
- Stasis (exists;
classical reality is immutable except for analytic state-ic
(exists; classical science may assume certain absolute truths
are self-evident; etc.)
- Etc. SoSR HotMemes
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'
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:
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
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 "
" 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
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, "
paradigm fits all for now
paradigm status quo is the
way to go for now
" Yet in that pimping unfolds
and uncloaks change
It is also interesting how Kuhn shows us that classical science
becomes impotent without hiatal ("
uniparadigmatic allegiance massive scientific schizophrenia
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.
From a quantonics perspective, it is impossible to accomplish
a classical EOOO
switch of a Gestalt; see our Möbius
Strip and Quantum
Stairs as Perception. N¤ Gestalt's figure and ground:
- have classically dichotomous interrelationships.
- are classically local or localable,
- are classically isolated or isolable,
- are classically separated or separable,
- are classically reduced or reducible,
Gestalts are rough classical analogues of what quantonics
calls "quantons" and as quantons they are n¤t
classically static-certain, rather they are stindyanic and their
quantonic interrelationships are quantum-ensemble-animate-phasic-uncertain.
Those interrelationships are quantum c¤mplementary, i.e.,
in a Gestalt, figure and ground quantum-c¤mplement one
another. A Gestalt's figure and ground demonstrate amply, classical
negation's intrinsic subjectivity! Any Gestalt's figure
is quantum BAAM
c¤mplementary its ground. So we can show a Gestalt
In Quantonics, we explain quantum Gestalt affects in our Stairs as Evidence of
Quantum Perceptual Changes.
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,
- Doug 27Mar2004) c¤mplementing our list
of classical jewels above so that you may compenetrate
them for your own edification.
Kuhn's glimmers of Quantum memetic Avatars:
- Gestalt (Classical view: paradice. Quantonics view:
- Paradigm(/pragmadigm) as perceptual prerequisite and precursor
of quantum Gestalt memes. (E.g., in Quantonics, isofluxes'
isoconicity is a perceptual prerequisite. Without quantonics'
quantum isoconicity, Jastrow's stairs and Gestalt's figure-grounds
remain inexplicable classical illusions paradice.)
- Our Western cultural legacy classical paradigm is "askew."
(We would say its metadigm is "askew.")
- Hints of effacing anthropocentricity as an essential observation-measurement
ingredient of any scientific paradigm.
- Approximate paraphrases and concord with Bergson's assessments
of Western cultures' current classical metadigm delusions:
- "Reality is stable," and
- "Objects in reality are independent."
- No single view of reality is "correct." Reality
is quantum uncertain, n¤t just CR-parallel.
- No data sets collected by:
- One scientist at different times, or
- Many different scientists in different space-times
are or can ever 'be' identical!
- ~Validation/acceptance of phenomenal interpretations:
- Dynamis preference over stasis (A small Kuhnian classical
step toward a better quantum meme: analytic process
over analytic state. (Note: in quantum reality, process
'analyzable.' Quantum real processes are unstoppable!
See Henri Louis Bergson's Time and Free Will, Topic
35, page 219. Real processes have n¤
- We are in paradigms and paradigms are in us. (See Kuhn's
SoSR actual book text Postscript 1, Paradigms
and Community Structure.)
- Scientists need a quantum both-all/and-many of animate and
inanimate qualities. Anticipation of Pirsig's MoQ. Anticipation
of quantonics! Anticipation of language
remediation for Millennium III. (See "direct experience"
on pp. 125-7. Kuhn alternatively glimmers quantum avatars with
quick returns to perceived safety of classicism.) Here Kuhn offers
emergence of his own genius for us to study and behold. See if
you can distinguish his more quantum emergent-hiatal glimmers
from his legacy classical and epistemological concepts.
- Negation as subjective. (P. 146. Denial of Popperian 'falsification.'
"If any and every failure to fit were grounds for theory
rejection, all theories ought to be rejected at all times."
Bravo! Bravo! Dr. Kuhn!)
- (Quantum uncertain) verisimilitude as a both-all/and-many
(statistical ensemble) of (verificationsfalsifications). See pp. 146-7.
Classical absolute proof/certainty is a quantum impossibility.
Reality is intrinsically uncertain.
- Etc. SoSR HotMemes
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:
- Scientific fact may be established (with pockets of legacy
- Scientific fact and theory may be ideally and dialectically
- Scientific theories may be assessed ideally either
"confirmed" or "falsified,"
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,
"The process described in Section VII as the
resolution of revolutions is the selection by conflict
within the scientific community of the fittest
way to practice science. The net result of a sequence
of such revolutionary selections, separated by periods of normal
research, is the wonderfully adapted set of instruments
we call modern scientific knowledge."
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
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
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
Imagine a quantum bio-'logical' pr¤cess of meiosis
(Linguistically, "understatement." Litotes!). Meiosis
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
demonstrate often, our quantonic script is incredibly flexible
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.
# An Quantonic enthymemetic of 'ovum.' See 23Oct2006 aside just
# An Quantonic enthymemetic of 'sperm.' See 23Oct2006 aside just
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)
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
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.'
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."
ihn all quantum rælihty aræ 'fahctings'
and 'truthings' absolutely and animately
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
view of reality in its own evolutionary
progress, its own Creative
Evolution. From any
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
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
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
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
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
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,
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
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
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
In our brief puzzle side adventure, we wanted to offer a possible
future perspective by extending Kuhn's own prescient thoughts.
Partial Puzzle, "What's Unsaid,"
Kuhn's 1969 Postscript
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:
- Paradigms and
as the Constellation of Group Commitments
- Paradigms as Shared
- Tacit Knowledge
Incommensurability and Revolutions
- Revolutions and Relativism
- The Nature of Science
We order our review comments of his postscript following his
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.
||In this case we also see a classicist using nature
to falsify herself (see Jastrow,
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.
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
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
Wield of SOM's knife (AKA
Ockham's razor - 20Dec2001 Doug.) - "
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
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)
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
for the relative unanimity of their professional judgments?"
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
- 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.
- Paradigms as Shared
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.
- Tacit Knowledge
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
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.
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.
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.
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
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
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,
Solipsism, either individual or social, is unavoidable! That
is quantum reality! (We need to qualify these two statements.
To us, quantum reality issi
interrelationships among many solipsists and their unlimited
both actual and n¤nactual quantum c¤mplements.
We can show this using our quantonic script:
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.
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
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
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
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."
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!
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
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."
- Revolutions and
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
and is very different vis-à-vis Kuhn's apparent descriptions
of normal 'science's' incremental objective manufacturing of
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!
- 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
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
- etc. (our extended list is very, very long) SoSR
We hope you gained much value from our efforts to review Kuhn's
Thanks for reading,
Doug - 10Aug2001.
- 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
- 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
- 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
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
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
- Note 8 Return
To contact Quantonics write to or call:
Suite 18 #368 1950 East Greyhound Pass
Carmel, INdiana 46033-7730
©Quantonics, Inc., 2001-2012 Rev. 30Nov2009 PDR
Created: 13Aug2001 PDR
(18Aug2001 rev - Add anchor to Kuhn's
(27Aug2001 rev - Add schizophrenia link to Hesse's schizophrenia
quote in Stairs...Perception...Quantum Stages.)
(28Aug2001 rev - Correct some typos. Add some relevant/helpful
(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
(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
(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"
(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
(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
(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
(18May2004 rev - Repair unintentionally QELRed links just above
(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
(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.)