Stephen Goranson asks:
> By the way, addressed to all, can we agree that Thomas S. Kuhn, author of
> The Structure of Scientific Revolutions, disapproved of use of his
> "paradigm" analysis outside of the history of science?
No, in the 1969 Postscript to his second (also third) edition(s) of The
Structure of Scientific Revolutions, he addresses this specific question at
pp. 208-210. In response to those who "read its [his book's] main theses as
applicable to many other fields as well" he says, e.g., "To the extent that
the book portrays scientific development as a succession of tradition-bound
periods punctuated by non-cumulative breaks, its theses are undoubtedly of
wide application."
> And that he and Karl
> Popper, who advocated "falsifiability," quite disagreed with one another?
It seriously oversimplifies the relationship of Kuhn and Popper to say
that they disagreed with one another, especially with respect to
falsifiability. There are also important areas of agreement. Popper's
essential position (as articulated in his The Logic of Scientific Discovery
-- see also Popper Selections, edited by David Miller) is that scientific
theory is essentially that which is testable and capable of falsification. I
don't believe Kuhn disagrees with this essential observation, nor with
Popper's "advocacy" (as you put it) of falsifiability as an essential
function of scientific inquiry.
Kuhn's major contribution (as I see it) is that major paradigms or
constellations of scientific beliefs very often survive falsification for a
significant "crisis" period when contradictory data has arisen which the
paradigm fails to account for. The paradigm (or theory) struggles along
during the crisis period by ignoring or discounting falsifying data or
patching it over with ad hoc explanations. Older, obsolete paradigms
collapse not merely by falsification (as Popper would hope for in his ideal
of scientific progress) but by falsification combined with a new paradigm.
For instance, classical physics didn't collapse merely by the
Michaelson-Morley experiment on the speed of light, which Newtonian physics
was incapable of explaining, but by this theory AND Einstein's new theory of
special relativity. Scientists generally don't abandon one theory until they
have a better one to switch to, despite the growing body of falsifying data.
All this is applicable to the field of scrolls study, where current
historical paradigms are entering a crisis period. The reigning paradigm is
of course that which correlates the scrolls sect with the occupants of Qumran
and accordingly assigns the rise of the scrolls sect to the early first
century BCE, and equates the scroll sect with the Essenes. This paradigm
usually involves a number of corollary conjectures that are impossible to
either historically verify or falsify, and are unscientific in Popper's sense
-- such as that the Teacher of Righteousness founded Qumran, that Jannaeus or
some other Wicked Priest persecuted the inhabitants of Qumran, that the
sectarian scrolls were composed at Qumran, etc. Indeed, the history of the
scrolls sect is conveniently invisible, having evidently left no trace in
historical records.
This paradigm tenaciously persists in classical Kuhn-ian fashion despite
having been falsified by a number of data, of which I immodestly might point
out my own articles dating the War Scroll to 163 BCE based on both military
data and historical allusions. However, in my opinion (and consistent with
Kuhn's theories) any new paradigm on the Dead Sea Scrolls, to be successful,
must not only falsify current historical assumptions but also present a
superior understanding of the historical background of the Nahum Pesher, the
one apparent "success" of the old paradigm. Current theories (and even some
textual readings) of the Nahum Pesher are highly problematic, as I think will
be brought out in important new studies next year. Until then, I doubt that
the field will perceive the depth of the current crisis.
Best regards,
Russell Gmirkin
For private reply, e-mail to RGmyrken@aol.com
----------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe from Orion, e-mail to majordomo@panda.mscc.huji.ac.il with
the message: "unsubscribe Orion." For more information on the Orion Center
or for Orion archives, visit our web site http://orion.mscc.huji.ac.il.