- What is a paradigm?
- Give an example of a scientific paradigm and a
nonscientific paradigm.
- Discuss the terms "world view",
"model", "paradigm" as they relate to physical science.
- How does a paradigm influence perception? Give an
example.
- Compare and contrast paradigm, metaphor and model.
- Why do our minds create and rely upon paradigms?
- Is the fact that Earth is flattened at the poles a
significant contradiction to the "spherical Earth" paradigm?
Explain.
- Cite and discuss an example of a scientific model. <
- Discuss the statement, "Sensitivity may be
increased by knowledge."
A paradigm is model of understanding, consistently free of significant
contradictions, which guides expectations. It organizes perception and
information. Recall that experience guides the way in which information is
processed. Because of the way in which the human brain processes information it
is necessary to compare new information with that which has already been
processed. In this way experience accumulates and learning takes place. It is
not necessary to reinvent the wheel once "wheel" exists as a category
against which all other round, rolling objects can be compared. So a paradigm is
a model which affects not only the way information is processes, but also
affects the types of questions asked. In other words it affects the type of
information which is perceived in the first place. It allows the brain to decide
what types of information to process as well as guiding the brain to store that
information in a particular category. It incorporates both prior knowledge as
well as beliefs about the way things are "supposed" to behave.
Much of the history of science involves the "EUREKA" or
"AHA" experience. The experience of suddenly seeing something in a new
way which makes it all clear has many examples. The vision of Archimedes running
naked throughthe streets shouting ,"Eureka, I've found it," after
suddenly seeing the principle of buoyancy is the prototype for this term. It has
been said that the best discoveries in science are those which when looked back
upon evoke the response, "of course." Why is it so difficult to see
what seems in retrospect to have been obvious all along? It has to do with
paradigms. Optical illusions are one way of looking at the concept of paradigm.
Study these illusions and their captions for a few minutes before reading
further.
How is the box oriented? Imagine it is made out of clear plastic. It
could be that you are standing above it looking at it as it sits on the floor.
Right?
Or, if you use your imagination it could be sitting on a glass table
and you are looking at it from beneath as you lie on the floor under the table.
Which is it? Neither and both. It is not a cube at all. It is a hexagon which
has lines which remind you of a cube when viewed from a certain perspective. The
problem is the flat representation provides ambiguous information so your brain
can see it whichever way you tell it to.
Now look at the stairs. No problem here. This is just a staircase as you might
see it looking down from a landing above.
But wait. The wall labelled "A" could be a front wall instead of a
back wall. And now you begin to see the stairs as if you are below them looking
into the space under the stairwell.
Worse yet, if you tilt your head horizontally to the left and look at the
riser of the lower step as the floor at the bottom, the whole thing shifts to
become a staircase that goes upward to the your right.
Once again the problem is not with the picture, it is in the ambiguity of the
information. Your brain has to fill in the missing information.
It is this ambiguity that allows M. C. Escher to create pictures such as old
hag.
Notice the long
nose with a wart, the protruding chin, and the old scarf wrapped around the
head. What? You don't see an old woman. What do you see? Wait a minute, this is
a picture of a yound lady, her head turned ever so demurely. She is wearing a
choker which emphasizes the curve of her delicate neck.
Do you see both figures in the picture? Study them for awhile until you can
see either at will. Now consider this question: What is this a picture of? Is it
an old hag, or a young lady? You might say it is both. It contains elements of
both figures. I would argue that it is neither. It is really a bunch of lines
from which your brain creates the image. The old hag and the young lady both
exist in your mind because you have seen old hags and young ladies and have a
category in your mind for each. Your brain can categorize this collection of
lines as either only because they resemble something that you have seen before.
Of course this drawing is designed to fool your brain. It gives clues which are
less than subtle.
This ability of the human brain to see patterns and compare them is the basis of
the Rorschach test used by clinical psychologists. The ink blots are random
patterns, like the clouds. But each person will see something different in them.
By noting how the patient responds, the psychologist can learn something about
how the patient organizes information. That the organization of information as
revealed by the ink blots can provide insight into the subconcious was a
revolution in psychology.
It is very common for people to see the Virgin Mary, or Elvis or other well
known icons in reflections in windows, or in light patterns on a distant
hillside. Are they really there?
The Face on Mars
A cult has been built around the shadowy outline of a face on the surface of
Mars suggesting that it proves the existence of intelligent extraterrestrial
life. The NASA photo of the surface of Mars was released to the public after it
was image enhanced by computer. 
This "face" was discovered in a portion of the image and attracted
much attention. Analysis
of the image shows that it is an illusion that depends on the angle of
viewing and the angle of the sun.
All we can really say is that what we see is influenced by a complex web of
conscious and subconscious categorization. We know the human brain posesses the
capability to provide missing information in order to make sense out of patterns
and will do so.
We need to remember how easy it is to jump to conclusions based upon
incomplete information. Many of our social and political problems might be
alleviated if we were not so quick to do so.
Scientific observations and theories try to supply as much of the missing
information as possible, but even then it is all too easy to think we know more
than we really do. Art takes advantage of this tendency to create images from
incomplete information. It relies on the mind of the beholder to provide the
missing experience so that each viewer get a different interpretation.
Look at this vase.
This common illusion is really an example of the role of figure and
background, but it also illustrates the concept of paradigm. Can you see the two
profiles?
Most people can see both the vase and the profiles, but not at the same time.
No matter how hard you try, one or the other is perceived. If you really
concentrate, you may be able to see them switching back and forth really fast.
So fast in fact that it is easy to be convinced that you are seeing both images
at once.
Here is the Canadian Flag.
It
is a maple leaf, which is the national symbol of Canada. This flag is relatively
new and was decided upon by a national committee during a series of heated and
confrontational meetings. The separatist movement was strong in Canada at the
time and there was a well supported movement to form a separate country which
would be linguistly and ethnically French. After many heated debates the new
national flag was reluctantly agreed upon. Take a closer look at the flag. The
picture dissolves into two men glaring at each other, their foreheads pressed
together as if trying to overwhelm one another by sheer will. Take a minute to
look at it.
Note that this was not conciously planned. Before adoptionn the symbol was
modified repeatedly by each side, concessions being made with each modification
in a political power play. But even more important, it is unlikely that you
noticed this aspect until it was pointed out to you. In other words, once
another paradigm has been revealed your brain easily made the switch.
It is also worthy of note that the term, paradigm, extends beyond just
physical science. The work can be used to describe preferred ways of thinking in
other areas as well. In politics, literature, movies, and art we find the
paradigm expresed. As a brief example, consider the western movie. In the
original paradigm the indians were the bad guys, ruthless killers with no
respect for life. The calvary was the good guys, fighing for truth, justice, and
the American way. In the modern western the paradigm has shifted. Now the
calvary is the bad guys, ruthless killers with no respect for liife. The Indians
(now native Americans) have great and deep respect for life, nature and the
(native) American way.
Of course neither of these views is historically accurate. In both groups are
people of all types. But the paradigm favors one interpretation over the other.
Similar examples could be cited from other areas. Can you think of some?
What do you see here? Answer quickly because the longer you look at
it the more processing goes on inside your brain to categorize the pattern of
spots into a recognizable image. Once you have formed your opinion of what it
is, click
to see if we agree.
We have had disagreements in the classroom on this one. A student once
insisted that it was a pig and could not (or would not) see the other image even
at the insistence of the rest of the class.
Sometimes our preconceived notions are so strong that we will not surrender
them even in the face of overwhelming evidence to the contrary.
What do these pictures have in common?
They have some similarities. The man's hair and the woman's hair are almost
the same shape, although the shapes have a different relationship to the picture
as a whole. The man's nose is the same kind of shape as the woman's elbow.
There is not much of a chance of being confused by these two images.
But what if you were shown a picture which looks like both of them, but like
neither?
Look at the series of pictures below. Starting from the middle, the sequence
logically progresses toward the woman if you go one way, or the man if you go
the other.
If you can, view the movie,
and try to decide at what point in the sequence the image transforms.
Run the movie backwards. Does the image transform at the same stage, or is it
different depending on whether you see the man or the woman first?
Another way to think of a paradigm is in terms of models or metaphors. Both rely
on imagination and the ability to abstract, the ability to recognize
similarities between objects of different types and the ability to reorganize
sets of attributes. When the poet writes of waves crashing on a deserted beach
she may be speaking of the despair of lonliness after a broken romance.
Something in the image of the beach with crashing waves speaks to our emotions
in the same way as does a broken romance. Whether is is hope dashed against the
rocks, or the desolation of the beach, or the temptation to end it all by
walking into the waves doesn't matter. It might be different for each of us. But
in metaphor we describe one thing by describing another.
A model is similar to a metaphor. A model is different from but similar to the
thing it represents. It contains the essentials, but lacks all of the details.
The model airplane is the right shape and the right proportions, but does not
have the engine, the controls, the guns, the pilot, and probably won't fly. Yet
looking at it evokes an image of the real thing.
No one believes Earth is like a globe in every way. But the globe shows all
the essentials of location and shape of continents, rivers, oceans, etc.
Different globes show different aspects. Some show political boundaries. Others
show topography. Someone said, "The map is not the territory." For the
model to show all aspects of the real thing it would have to be the real thing.
A model may have only limited use as visualization, but may be very effective
nonetheless. A good example is the planetary atomic model. This picture of the
atom as a nucleus with electrons in orbit around it like planets around the sun
has been very effective in visualizing the atom. No one really believes that an
atom really looks like that. The real atom is much more complicated. In fact it
takes many different models to visualize the true nature of the atom because the
atom doesn't really "look" like anything. We can't see atoms. They are
much too small to be seen with light waves. We can only visualize them through
the use of models like this one.
The classification which are used by scientists are efforts to simplify by using
models. Diagrams like that used to depict the atom are models as noted above. As
another example, when we want to show how a modern automobile works we can
classify it according to function into power train, cooling system, electrical
system, braking system, etc. We can show pictures of each system. Graphs, tree
charts, flowcharts, and mathematical equations as used in science are all models
which both characterize and simplify the thing being studied. Just as it takes
many maps and globes to show the true nature of Earth, so it also takes many
models of many different types to show the true nature of physical laws and
relationships. Only by looking at simplified schematic models of different
aspects at a time can we begin to understand the thing we are studying.
A given paradigm, as used to describe scientific ideas, is consistently free of
significant contradictions. It is not an ironclad rule just how serious a
contradiction must be in order to invalidate the paradigm. But a paradigm may
accommodate small contradiction or inconsistencies. However, conclusions which
contradict the paradigm cannot be accepted as valid no matter how good they
sound otherwise. Unless the contiuing presence of contradictions forces the
paradigm to shift or to be modified. The process by which paradigm shifts occur
is detailed in a book called The Structure of Scientific Revolutions by
Thomas Kuhn.
In science we find paradigms at many different levels, paradigms within
paradigms within paradigms. A major paradigm might contain many smaller ones,
for example the current theory regarding plate tectonics in geology incorporates
paradigms of earthquakes, volcanic activity, mountain building, sea floor
spreading, and continental drift.
Paradigms may overlap into different areas, strengthening each. For example
the atomic theory provides a model for understanding chemical reactions, but
also for understanding the nature of solids, the relationship between heat and
temperature, the gas laws, emission and absorption of light, among others. It
also ties in with theories in astronomy, geology, biology. This model, atomic
theory is so powerful that it links all the sciences. To disprove one, you have
to disprove all. Of all paradigms heliocentrism and atomic theory can be said
with highest certainty to be "true". Perhaps not complete or
completely true, but true.
Rorschach
Ink Blots