> Kevin,
>
> In your post to Cliff you claimed two things that I would like to
> take exception to:
>
Your input is most welcome.
>
> 1. Your claim that "working scientists" regard the word "paradigm"
> to refer to nothing more than a hypothesis or model.
>
Actually, that wasn't what I said; I said that paradigm simply meant a
pattern or model. I am very much aware that many scientists use the term
paradigm as Kuhn would use it, but I am also aware that many use it as part
of their everyday terminology. I have also read scientific papers from the
Twenties, Thirties and Fourties that used that term in a most un-Kuhnian
fashion, namely to refer to working hypotheses. It may not be common now to
use that term, but I was first exposed to it in graduate school; one of my
professors used it almost exclusively when talking about working hypotheses.
>
> This does not match my experience, and I invite other "working scientists"
> to respond with theirs.
>
I second that invitation. In any event, it is obvious that my experience is
different from yours. Maybe it has to do with biologists versus physicists;
I know from graduate school that when I used paradigm to a physics professor
he handed me my head! Whereas my advisor (a biochemist) thought he was nuts
to get so upset.
>
> In all of my professional training, up through
> and including the Ph. D., I do not remember hearing the word "paradigm"
> used even once with regard to scientific work. The words "model",
"theory",
> and "hypothesis", often modified by the adjectives "heuristic" or
> phenomenological", are ubiquitous in at least the physical sciences. But
> paradigm? Not in my experience.
>
> Even today, I think that the term is used nearly exclusively by
philosophers
> of science or working scientists who have been exposed to the writings of
> such philosophers. The phrase "paradigm shift" did not necessarily
> originate
> with Kuhn, but was certainly popularized by him. Still today, though, I
> encounter many research scientists whose views of science are largely
> Baconian
> and who have never been exposed to some of the critiques and correctives
of
> Kuhn and others. I suspect that academics in the humanities and social
> sciences speak more frequently of "paradigms" than those in the natural
> sciences.
>
> 2. Your attempt to characterize James Watson as a "(bio)chemist".
>
It's not my characterization. I remember Crick referring to Watson that way
when he remenisced about their college days. A recent (within the past five
years) biography of Rosalind Franklyn published in Nature or TIBS or some
such characterized Watson that way as well, as have the authors of articles
I've read about Watson himself. I thought I remember hearing Watson refer to
himself that way, but I guess I may be wrong. In any event, either we have
all made the same mistake, or Watson is simply being modest.
>
> Chapter
> three of his book "The Double Helix" makes it very clear that as a graduate
> student and postdoc he was very reluctant to learn any chemistry at all,
> and as a matter of fact, when he was awarded a postdoc fellowship for the
> express purpose of learning biochemistry, he avoided it mightily and
> actually
> got involved in phage research similar to what he had done for his Ph.D.
> I believe that a fair reading of his book shows that he only began to take
> an
> interest in biochemistry when he got excited about solving the structure
of
> DNA. Up to that time he had little, if any, formal training in
chemistry...
> by his own admission. Watson also explained that he acquired this
> aversion to chemistry from his advisor, Savador Luria.
>
Well, again, all I can say is that Crick once referred to Watson as the best
chemist he knew at university. According to him, Watson practically taught
him the chemistry he needed to get through his first year. I think maybe
Watson was trying to be modest.
>
> So I think your assertion:
>
> ===================================================
> The only examples that exist are those of people who
> were already experts in the field in which they made their breakthrough,
> through independent study and research, but who were unacknowledged by the
> recognized experts in that field.
> ===============================================
>
> is clearly incorrect in at least the case of Watson. Note the word
> "already" in the statement.
>
Maybe; depends upon whether Crick and the others I mentioned above are
mistaken or exaggerating, or if Watson is simply trying to downplay his own
abilities for some reason. I remember reading once a very unflattering view
of Watson, which described him as an egomaniac who would often try to appear
dumber than he really was so as to make his accomplishments seem all the more
spectacular. I never put much stock in that essay, but maybe there might be
some truth to it afterall, based on our different sources.
Anyways, thanks again for your comments.
Kevin L. O'Brien