Posted by alexandra_k on September 22, 2006, at 20:15:02 [reposted on September 25, 2006, at 0:09:09 | original URL]
In reply to conceptual free market » alexandra_k, posted by zeugma on September 22, 2006, at 19:46:28
(((((((((((((((((((((z))))))))))))))))
I've missed you :-)What I'm thinking... Is that typically people talk about different 'Kuhnian paradigms' that have been applied to the investigation and explanation of abnormal behaviour. As examples...
Biomedical paradigm
Psychoanalytic paradigm
Humanist and existentialist paradigm
Cognitive paradigm
Behavioural and Learning paradigm
Sociological paradigm
Etc etc (not meant to be exhaustive.
Two points:
1) The notion of a Kuhnian paradigm is unclear / controversial. There are as many different theories of the nature of Kuhnian paradigms as there are alleged Kuhnian paradigms. Thus calling these 'Kuhnian paradigms' is unlikely to be illuminating.
2) It is controversial whether the above theoretical frameworks (hopefully that is fairly neutral) are appropriately thought of as Kuhnian paradigms. In particular... If psychoanalysis isn't a scientific theory (which many have argued it is not) then it wouldn't be a Kuhnian paradigm.PROBLEM: How do these theoretical frameworks (is that neutral enough?) relate to one another?
One way of trying to answer the problem...
Supervenience. Most people accept this little hierarcy:
Psychology
Biology
Chemistry
MicrophysicsIt is controversial whether you get to put consciousness on the top... I'm not sure whether to deal with events, facts, processes, properties or what... But if we deal with facts the notion is the low level facts fix the high level facts whereas the converse is not the case. Some people reckon you can put sociology on top (Not sure whether that goes on top of consciousness... Perhaps) because the social facts are fixed by the individuals psychological facts (and the environmental facts but if you are a broad content person then you probably get environmental facts for free in the psychological facts).
So... If that is right maybe the medical paradigm just gets plugged in to the biological level of analysis. Regarding psychology... I guess psychoanalysis, folk psychology, cognitive psychology and maybe phenomenology gets to be at the psychological level of analysis. How those 'paradigms' relate to one another at a level is tricky... Do they conflict with one another or are they consistent? Dunno... Then you have the sociological facts one level up. And supervenience where the low level (biology) fixes the higher levels (psychology then sociology).
But there is multiple realizability too... That seems to entail that reduction won't work hence we get explanatory autonomy at each level. But Jaegwon Kim has written something or other about the causal exclusion principle and so long as we have token reduction (which is entailed by supervenience) then causal exclusion would take away causation at higher levels and bio would be fundamental.
Dunno... Pretty tricky. I want to argue for supervenience without explanatory / causal reduction. But I dunno howish...
I'm wondering if there is 'explanatory breadth' wiich is horizontal. About how much subject matter is shared (at a level). So to cash out the rivalry (?) at the psychological level that way... And there is 'explanatory depth' which is vertical. About the supervenience with explanatory autonomy relationship between different levels (with respect to causation and explanation).
Ak.
Make sense kinda?
poster:alexandra_k
thread:688931
URL: http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/social/20060922/msgs/688946.html