The Paradigm Concept and Sociology: A Critical Review

Autori potaknuti brojnim primjerima krive upotrebe pojma paradigme u sociologiji ekspliciraju ovaj koncept Kuhnovim i Mastermanovinim definicijama i upotrebama termina. Oni ukazuju na različite načine na koje su brojni sociolozi koristili ovaj pojam i nastoje ustanoviti zašto je teorijski tako važan doprinos kao što je Kuhnov bio toliko krivo upotrebljavan. Nakon iscrpne analize upotrebe pojma paradigme u sociologiji autori nude vlastitu verziju paradigmatskog statusa sociologije i konstatiraju da, ako u sociologiji i postoje paradigme, one (1) ne smiju biti u opsegu čitave discipline, (2) moraju se naći unutar samostalnih područja istraživanja, (3) moraju imati zajednice praktičara koje sraštaju oko njih i (4) moraju biti korištene da istovremeno stvaraju i rješavaju zagonetke stvarajući na taj način vidljivu istraživačku tradiciju.The thesis of this paper contends that many sociologists who have attempted to apply Kuhn’s argument in analyzing the status of sociology have misunderstood, or have refused to accept the central meaning of his paradigm concept. In this paper we first clarify the notion of paradigm as explicated by Kuhn and by Margaret Masterman, and note that the »exemplar« is the central element in the concept. We then analyze the usage of the concept by sociologists who have attempted to ascertain the paradigmatic status of sociology and we focus in particular on the work of Friedrichs and that of Ritzer. In so doing, we show that they have concentrated almost exclusively on the less important, more general meanings of the paradigm concept and thus lose the major thrust of Kuhn\u27s argument. Possible reasons for this misuse are discussed. Finally, we argue that sociology has relatively few exemplars, lacks a clear-cut puzzle-solving tradition, and tends to operate from discipline-wide perspectives. In this regard, sociology is not a mature science; attempts to treat it as such within Kuhn’s framework are misdirected

Searching for the Kuhnian moment : the Black-Scholes-Merton formula and the evolution of modern finance theory

The Black-Scholes-Merton formula has been put to widespread use by options traders because it provides a means of calculating the theoretically 'correct' price of stock options. Traders can therefore see whether the market price of stock options undervalues or overvalues them compared with their hypothetical Black-Scholes-Merton price, before choosing to buy or sell options accordingly. As a consequence of this close relationship between options pricing theory and options pricing practice, a strong performativity loop was activated, whereby market prices quickly converged on the hypothetical Black-Scholes-Merton prices following the dissemination of the formula. The theory has therefore had significant real-world effects, but how should we characterize the initial instinct to derive the theory from a philosophy of science perspective? The two books under review suggest that a Kuhnian reading of the advancement of scientific knowledge might well be the most appropriate. But, on closer inspection, it becomes clear that the publication of the Black-Scholes-Merton formula should not be seen as a Kuhnian moment with paradigm-shaping attributes. It is shown that, at most, the formula acts as an important exemplar which, via its use in the training of options pricing theorists and options pricing practitioners, reinforces the entrenchment of finance theory within the orthodox economics worldview

Crop pests and predators exhibit inconsistent responses to surrounding landscape composition

The idea that noncrop habitat enhances pest control and represents a win–win opportunity to conserve biodiversity and bolster yields has emerged as an agroecological paradigm. However, while noncrop habitat in landscapes surrounding farms sometimes benefits pest predators, natural enemy responses remain heterogeneous across studies and effects on pests are inconclusive. The observed heterogeneity in species responses to noncrop habitat may be biological in origin or could result from variation in how habitat and biocontrol are measured. Here, we use a pest-control database encompassing 132 studies and 6,759 sites worldwide to model natural enemy and pest abundances, predation rates, and crop damage as a function of landscape composition. Our results showed that although landscape composition explained significant variation within studies, pest and enemy abundances, predation rates, crop damage, and yields each exhibited different responses across studies, sometimes increasing and sometimes decreasing in landscapes with more noncrop habitat but overall showing no consistent trend. Thus, models that used landscape-composition variables to predict pest-control dynamics demonstrated little potential to explain variation across studies, though prediction did improve when comparing studies with similar crop and landscape features. Overall, our work shows that surrounding noncrop habitat does not consistently improve pest management, meaning habitat conservation may bolster production in some systems and depress yields in others. Future efforts to develop tools that inform farmers when habitat conservation truly represents a win–win would benefit from increased understanding of how landscape effects are modulated by local farm management and the biology of pests and their enemies

The dilemma of osteopathic physicians and the rationalization of medical practice

Years ago, Peter New observed that osteopathic medical students faced a dilemma concerning their identity. On the one hand, they wished to be considered complete medical practitioners. On the other hand, they wished to be seen as different from MDs. There is evidence that osteopathic physicians continue to face that dilemma. I hypothesize that in part this stems from a conflict between classical 'lifestyle commitments' of the osteopathic community (e.g. toward general practice, osteopathic manipulative therapy, holism) and the rationalized model of medicine practiced by MDs (characterized by specialization and scientific elitism). Results of a survey of a local population of osteopathic physicians generally confirm this. Specific findings are that (1) classical elements of osteopathic commitment are not tied to commitment to the profession in general, (2) there appears to be a waning of commitment to general practice, (3) an increasing number of osteopathic physicians used the DO degree as a 'back door' into medicine and are less likely to identify with classical osteopathic norms, and (4) DOs from socially conservative backgrounds are more likely than others to maintain commitment to the classical elements of osteopathic practice.osteopathic physicians rationalization status groups

Intelligence and race : the origins and dimensions of the IQ controversy /

Includes index.Bibliography p. 228-268

The Paradigm Concept and Sociology: A Critical Review

Autori potaknuti brojnim primjerima krive upotrebe pojma paradigme u sociologiji ekspliciraju ovaj koncept Kuhnovim i Mastermanovinim definicijama i upotrebama termina. Oni ukazuju na različite načine na koje su brojni sociolozi koristili ovaj pojam i nastoje ustanoviti zašto je teorijski tako važan doprinos kao što je Kuhnov bio toliko krivo upotrebljavan. Nakon iscrpne analize upotrebe pojma paradigme u sociologiji autori nude vlastitu verziju paradigmatskog statusa sociologije i konstatiraju da, ako u sociologiji i postoje paradigme, one (1) ne smiju biti u opsegu čitave discipline, (2) moraju se naći unutar samostalnih područja istraživanja, (3) moraju imati zajednice praktičara koje sraštaju oko njih i (4) moraju biti korištene da istovremeno stvaraju i rješavaju zagonetke stvarajući na taj način vidljivu istraživačku tradiciju.The thesis of this paper contends that many sociologists who have attempted to apply Kuhn’s argument in analyzing the status of sociology have misunderstood, or have refused to accept the central meaning of his paradigm concept. In this paper we first clarify the notion of paradigm as explicated by Kuhn and by Margaret Masterman, and note that the »exemplar« is the central element in the concept. We then analyze the usage of the concept by sociologists who have attempted to ascertain the paradigmatic status of sociology and we focus in particular on the work of Friedrichs and that of Ritzer. In so doing, we show that they have concentrated almost exclusively on the less important, more general meanings of the paradigm concept and thus lose the major thrust of Kuhn\u27s argument. Possible reasons for this misuse are discussed. Finally, we argue that sociology has relatively few exemplars, lacks a clear-cut puzzle-solving tradition, and tends to operate from discipline-wide perspectives. In this regard, sociology is not a mature science; attempts to treat it as such within Kuhn’s framework are misdirected