Alternative paradigmatic hypotheses cannot be fairly evaluated from within one's own paradigmatic assumptions
Behavioral and Brain Sciences 26 (4):430-439 (2003)
|Abstract||To avoid endless and futile debate, critics of an alternative paradigmatic hypothesis cannot simply state their own paradigmatic assumptions as if they were plain fact while dismissing those of the opposition as self-evidently absurd, because it is exactly those initial assumptions that are brought into question by the paradigmatic proposal. Perceived incredibility is no valid ground for rejection of a paradigm whose alternatives are at least equally incredible, and arguably more so.|
|Keywords||No keywords specified (fix it)|
|Categories||No categories specified (fix it)|
|Through your library||Configure|
Similar books and articles
Steven L. Ross (1984). Weakness and Dignity in Conrad's Lord Jim. Philosophy Research Archives 10:153-171.
James P. Blevins (1995). Syncretism and Paradigmatic Opposition. Linguistics and Philosophy 18 (2):113 - 152.
Bernhard Mark-Ungericht & Richard Weiskopf (2007). Filling the Empty Shell. The Public Debate on CSR in Austria as a Paradigmatic Example of a Political Discourse. Journal of Business Ethics 70 (3):285 - 297.
Stephen L. Payne (2000). Challenges for Research Ethics and Moral Knowledge Construction in the Applied Social Sciences. Journal of Business Ethics 26 (4):307 - 318.
Panos Theodorou (2004). Of the Same in the Different. What is Wrong with Kuhn's Use of ``Seeing'' and ``Seeing As''. Journal for General Philosophy of Science 35 (1):175-200.
Dirk Geeraerts (1985). Paradigm and Paradox: Explorations Into a Paradigmatic Theory of Meaning and its Epistemological Background. Leuven University Press.
Added to index2009-01-28
Total downloads3 ( #203,919 of 556,896 )
Recent downloads (6 months)0
How can I increase my downloads?