She is pursuing her M.Phil on Development Ethics from the Department of Political Science, University of Delhi.
e-mail: wasudha_bhatt@rediffmail.com

      Kuhn’s Road Since Structure

In Structure of Scientific Revolutions, Thomas S.Kuhn introduced the single most striking concept of "paradigm" into the discourse of Philosophy of Science, which people of a set or community shared. Thirty years after, in a paper titled The Road Since Structure, Kuhn seems to make an attempt to go beyond this model by revisiting and exploring the structures behind paradigms themselves. Of course, his central concerns in general are again: rationality, relativism, realism and truth but most crucially he formulates the idea of incommensurability as fundamental to the viewing and understanding of scientific knowledge.

Kuhn traces the evolution of incommensurability from the period when there were attempts to understand apparently nonsensical passages in old scientific texts, ordinarily taken to be confused or mistaken beliefs, and therefore taken to be incommensurable. However, it was later realized that this apparent nonsense could be wholly removed by recovering the old meanings that were indeed remarkably different. Metaphorically, Kuhn explained this earlier, as a ‘process’ by which later meanings evolve from earlier ones with changes in language. But to be more specific, Kuhn adds that, in talking about scientific knowledge he is not really dealing with all general features of language as such but with meanings of a certain restricted class of terms. These are "taxonomic terms" or "kind terms" which include count nouns, mass nouns or classes- that take the indefinite article; in other words, the many classificatory systems that underlie scientific knowledge.

The two properties that taxonomic terms or kind terms have are that they (i) take the indefinite article. It would thus be essential to know what the term applies to or its denotation, and (ii) work with the no- overlap principle, a certain ‘boundary definition’; which is to the effect that no two terms with a kind label, unless related as species to genus, can overlap. For example, things as dogs/cats/silver, etc. are all different from each other in kind because there is no overlap in their boundary definition.

Kuhn points out that a "… lexical taxonomy of some sort must be in place before description of the world can begin..."(p.233, para 2). It is the shared lexical taxonomy that allows statements to be meaningful in a given discourse. 
    What follows is that there is: 
(a) a presupposed lexical taxonomy
(b) which is shared 
(c) for unproblematic and meaningful communication. Community discourse is thus always context specific. Statements and theories are always situated within a specific taxonomy and they are both developed and validated/or rejected in that scheme. Two examples that Kuhn offers to illustrate his idea are: one, the untranslatability of the English phrase "the cat sat on the mat" into French owing to taxonomical difficulties, (that there really is no French counterpart to the term "mat" in English); and two, the Copernican statement "planets travel around the sun" cannot be expressed in a lexical structure which works with the taxonomy of the Ptolemaic statement "planets travel around the earth" (p.234). Kuhn asserts that lexical taxonomy roughly means a conceptual scheme that is not tied to a ‘set of belief’ but is of a ‘mental module’ , the very pre-requisite to having certain beliefs and even being able to conceive them. Kuhn, here, appears to be accounting for what makes it possible to conceive things in a certain way, perhaps even the pre-linguistic structures and the visual and cognitive configurations that determine the way we see, know and understand.

He further claims that violation of the no-overlap principle, etc. leads to incommensurability or untranslatability, "localized to one or another area in which two lexical taxonomies differ". This would mean that experience of world and its communication would necessarily take place within the structure of lexicon of a community. And it is virtually impossible to communicate all experience in its completeness across a lexical divide. When two different sets of taxonomies confront each other, the result is mutual incommensurability or untranslatability.

Kuhn then locates incommensurability within a developmental framework (within which it appears) and subsequently charts the course of an evolutionary epistemology. He admits that in thinking that history functioned as source of empirical evidence, the empirical aspect had been exaggerated. Beliefs are already there, there is a process in progress. The pursuit of science is situated within this process and there was no need of empirical observation of actual practices to conclude this.This clearly undermines the foundationalist description of things. Another serious consequence that follows from the rejection of foundationalism is the dismissal of the correspondence theory of truth. Developmental view traces and evaluates scientific knowledge claims 

not from an ‘Archimedean platform’ but from a moving  historically situated platform. It would be incorrect to evaluate a theory in isolation since theories are dependent and connected. The implication is that any new theory or proposition requires necessarily an adjustment with other beliefs.

Comparative judgments are, then, to do with the question of "which one of two bodies of knowledge is better" for a given work.This would amount really to a pragmatic decision. Such judgments have, as given, shared beliefs as part of the historical situation. Their evaluation would not depend on their being in fact true/false. However, this also implies that the question of truth/falsity of the changes made/ or the rejection of the judgment on those accounts simply does not arise. Justification of a belief does not aim at a goal external to the historical situation, thus, questioning the very basis of correspondence theory. The aim rather is to improve the tools available for the work engaged in. Next, Kuhn draws upon the distinction between normal development and revolutionary development: Outlining the parallels of biological evolution with scientific development, in so far as knowledge mutates and analogous speciation (creation of new disciplines, etc.) takes place, Kuhn stresses that in Structure, normal development was the development that added to existing knowledge while revolutionary development was a radical one that required giving up part of what had been believed before. In his fresh formulation, Kuhn seems to argue that revolutionary development is one that requires taxonomic changes, while normal development would be one that didn’t need any. He also asserts that more cognitive specialties or separate fields of knowledge arise, essentially at zones of lexical overlaps,each field being distinct in having developed a separate lexicon. Instead of a corres- pondence theory, Kuhn primarily argues for a redundancy theory of truth. In other words, now the essential function of truth involves choosing between acceptance and rejection of the statement/ theory in question in the face of ‘evidence shared by all’.
There is increasing belief for Kuhn that his central points would be better formulated without speaking of statements as themselves being true/false.Instead, he offers an alternative two-fold evaluation to determine the status of any statement:
(i)This would involve asking: 

‘Is the statement a possible candidate for truth/falsity?
(ii) If yes, ‘Is the statement rationally assertable?’ The answer to (ii) would be obviously answered by the normal ‘rules of evidence’ given a specific lexicon. Rules of evidence are laid down by the community sharing a lexical taxonomy. To give an instance, Kuhn points out that the basic principle of non-contradiction is valued in discourses in one language game while there are exceptions to it in certain other language games. The violation of the principle of non-contradiction is well expressed, for instance, in "poetry and metaphysical discourse" and its exploitation is common and justified in use of "metaphors". Rules of truth/falsity game are universal and essentially human, although, the result of applying those rules would differ. Kuhn stresses that breakdowns in communication, termed "crises" (Structure), are in fact crucial symptoms of growth of knowledge and the emergence of new disciplines. Where there is stark untranslatability or incommensurability, there is a new lexical taxonomy in place. This new taxonomy results in a new discipline altogether.

Kuhn maintains that the process of specialization imposes limitations on communication and community, making one field of knowledge inaccessible to another community which is unacquainted with that taxonomy. However, this limitation is inevitable owing to the necessary lexical divergence in the evolution of distinct fields. He is further led to argue that though lexical diversity amounts to: (a) a principled limit on communication and (b) a limited range of possible partners for a discourse, this is an essential precondition for any progress in knowledge.

Kuhn is careful to ward off any attempt to conclude the world as being either mind dependent or an invention/construction. There are two reasons that he offers in his defence: one, the world is not invented or constructed because we find the world already there before us, it is ‘given’ to us and two, it is experientially both given directly and indirectly to us. It often goes against our wishes. There are many times, " decisive evidence against invented hypotheses". This is however not to deny that there is always scope for interaction, leading to alteration of both the member and the world it constitutes. The question whether it is the creatures who adapt to the world or the world adapts to creatures" (p.242, para 2) is one that is raised in this context. Kuhn observes, that the ‘world is our representation of our niche’, of a given interacting community. Clearly though, this is meant to counter any subjectivist interpretation.

Even in talking of non overlapping lexical structures Kuhn is concerned with wanting to preserve something permanent, fixed, stable underlying difference and change. However, reiterating, as he puts it at the end, ‘Ways of being-in-the- world which lexicon provides are not candidates for truth or falsity.

                      Rimina Mohapatra
Rimina Mohapatra is pursuing her post graduation in Philosophy from the Department of Philosophy, University of Delhi. She is the Editorial Associate at DCRC.
e-mail: riminamohapatra@rediffmail.com

Perspectives are the articulations of researchers of their engagement with the field.Field Report of Survey in Kashmir ( July 25 to August 19, 2004)

The field survey in Kashmir valley under the project Conflict and Institutional Change in India has been completed with a total collection of 320 samples. 166 samples were collected from the higher conflict area and 154 from a lower conflict area. The survey in Kashmir valley was carried out in Srinagar district on the basis of higher manifestations of conflicts and also in areas of lower conflicts.The survey area was zeroed down to a Tehsil called Ganderbal in Srinagar district. In Ganderbal Tehsil, four villages were surveyed out of which two were from higher conflict areas and two from lower conflict areas. In the higher conflict area, Wandhama village and Tullamulla were surveyed. Dangerpora and Boras village were surveyed under lower conflict area. The entire field survey was conducted by seven local field investigators in fifteen days.

              Higher Conflict Area
Wandhama village is one where 24 Kashmiri pandits were killed in 1995. This village has 40 households with an approximate population of 1000. The village is located on a hillside and the main occupation of the villagers is agriculture. Due to lack of transportation and water facilities, nearly eight families have come down to settle near the main road. Presently, Wandhama village has no Hindu population. The village still carries the memories of the massacred pandits. The gutted houses of the Kashmiri pandits narrate the story of communal agony and loss of fellow beings. The villagers told us that paradoxically nobody has taken the responsibility of the massacre till date. While interacting with the villagers it became clear that they still share the agony of the pandits. The abandoned houses of pandits are still in the middle of the village and there has been no encroachment on the houses of pandits by the villagers.The average size of landholding in Wandhama is 3-5 Kanals. There are no significant big landlords and the economy of the village is facing a serious crisis due to unemployment and decreasing agricultural profit. The youths in the village have been looking for jobs but the scarcity of jobs in both private and public sector has further deteriorated their conditions.The survey in Wandhama was completed in two and half day’s time.

Tullmulla village is another area with higher presence of conflict. The village has a population of 7500 with a total of 1000 households. According to a villager, 75% of the population in the village are landlords, 1% government employees, and 24% carpet weavers. In Tullmulla, 40 Kanals is the average size of the biggest landownership with 8 to 9 landowners having such an ownership. Tullmulla has 12 Mohollas. The approximate youth population in the village is 2500. 

The main occupation of youths in the village is agriculture, carpet weaving, and shawl making. Majority of the youths are matriculate. Also, there are 3 to 4 doctors but not in the village. 95% of girls are also literate, Ghulam Nabi, a high school teacher told us.

Today, 100 graduate youths are unemployed. There is an increasing problem in the economy in Tullmulla as the overall agricultural profit is decreasing. The price of land has also tremendously gone up with urbanization. For instance, 1 Kanal of land on the roadside can fetch 6 lacs and if it is in the outskirts it would cost even less than 2 lacs. ‘Even 12 canals of farming land do not provide sufficient consumption requirements’, Mr. Shabir Ahmed Bhatt, a man in his early 60’s, informed us. He said that 20 Kanals is a reasonable size of landholding which can fetch agricultural self sufficiency.

As a result, there has been a reduction in the lower peasantry and the middle peasantry, mainly in the lower middle peasantry. The loss of profit in agriculture is quite a long crisis in J&K as well. Today, the conflict situation in Jammu and Kashmir is a culmination of various crises which are fast emerging.

           Lower Conflict Area
In comparison to Wandhawama and Tullmulla, Dangerpora and Boras are a relatively lower conflict areas and smaller as well. Dangerpora has 80 houses and there are 7/8 families having 20 Kanals of land ownership.