Posted by Jost on June 12, 2006, at 15:48:54
In reply to read this paper, posted by crabwalk on June 12, 2006, at 11:06:32
My take on this article is that it suggests testing two quasi-scientific (explanatory) paradigms against one another. This really can't be done, though.
The reason is that a paradigm identifies and organizes facts within itself; the facts, thus, will support the paradigm, because they are fact only in and for the purpose of elaborating that paradigm. [As opposed to another paradigm, or explanatory system] So if you have competing paradigms-- here, the drug-centered versus the biological paradigms of Antidepressant action-- you can't really test them against one another.
They will each generate different and competing sets of facts, but the fact-sets will be internally consistent--and the distinction between the two paradigms will be that each will seem to do a better (whatever that means at any moment) job of explaining its facts--and its facts will seem to do a better job at illustrating the shape of its paradigm.
There's no point of view outside either paradigm from which to test them against one another, though.
It's more a question of belief than scientific validation-- so far as I can tell-- some paradigms hold up for centuries, or possibly forever-- others hold up for a long time and are displaced, etc--
I won't go on, but I think in this case, you have to go with the paradigm that seems more salient, fruitful, or "right" on some other ground-- The dominant paradigm now is the biological one-- and it will take some pretty solid discordancies in the facts and outcomes before the ground could be laid for another one to be put forward--
Jost
poster:Jost
thread:655919
URL: http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/20060610/msgs/656014.html