International Encyclopedia of Systems and Cybernetics

A meaning system delineating relevance and nature of data, increments of measure, criteria of proof and inference rules (W. ACAR, 1988, p.121).

E. SCHWARZ goes even farther and defines it as "The set of the traits characterizing an interaction mode with the world" (1993, p.10). For him a paradigm also defines ways of perception and is closely related to culture. From an epistemological perspective it would be a "semantic attractor", acting as a constraint and, at the same time, as a stimulating factor. Finally, the paradigm also influences the way tools are made and used. An example could be the opposition between hypertechnical medicine and so-called natural-holistic one.

A paradigm thus becomes the reflection of a Weltanschauung (world view) and the invisible pattern that guides the construction of theories, methodologies… and even beliefs, justified or not by reasoning.

ACAR cites and discuss the different meanings given to the term by T. KUHN:

"… in much of the book the term "paradigm" is used in two different senses. On the one hand, it stands for the entire constellation of beliefs, values, techniques, and so on, shared by the members of a given community. On the other, it denotes one sort of element in that constellation, the concrete puzzle-solutions which, emphasized as models or examples, can replace explicit rules as a basis for the solution of the remaining puzzles of normal science" (1970, p.175).

Writes ACAR: "The first is, according to KUHN, an overall sociological sense, while the second is a more technical one which corresponds to the traditions and criteria that, in every domain of inquiry, distinguish "normal" from "heretical" science as well as define traditional disciplinary boundaries" (p.121).

ACAR cites P. SHRIVASTAVA and I. MITROFF, who write: "Paradigm guide the conduct of inquiry by defining legitimate research questions in a field, describing appropiate methods for addressing these questions, outlining the broad scope of an inquiry and encapsulating a researcher's assumptions in inquiry" (1984, p.18).

According to G.J. DALENOORT a paradigm "implies a set of beliefs, starting positions, methodology, and an epistemology, all concerning the knowledge making up a scientific discipline, that determine how one ought to interpret the facts of that discipline. Paradigm may even differ in their position as to what are the facts, and what the interpretations" (1989, p.1).

Science as it is made – under the control of some scientific establishment – is practically limited and in some cases repressed in the sense of KUHN or ACAR. But as many aspects of paradigms are consensual, they are intrinsically transient. However, the bedrock rules of scientific method constitute a quite inmutable fundamental paradigm whose prescriptions cannot be ignored.

As to the system concept, it is possibly a new paradigm, but it does not replace the so called reductionist paradigm, it merely complements it, or reframes it.

D. BOHM and F. D. PEAT state: "Paradigms include not only systems of theories, principles, and doctrines, but also what we have called the "tacit infrastructure of ideas", which are transmitted to later generations of scientists in a kind of apprenticeship" (1987, p.26).

A paradigm presents thus a conscious proposal, but also a set of unconscious constraints on thought, which is the reason why, in the long run, it finally blocks creativity (i.e., when the productivity limits of the paradigm have been attained).

According to E. GUBA (1990), any paradigm can be characterized by three complementary criteria.

The first one is ontologic: it implies a basic stand about the correspondence with the postulated reality of the knowledge that can be acquired.

The second one is epistemologic and states the nature of the relation between knowledge and the knower.

The third one is methodological and defines the ways considered correct to further research.

None of these criteria can ever be definitively confirmed in any absolute sense. This explains why former paradigms are abandoned and new ones adopted.

J.van GIGCH examines in the following terms the justifications for the existence and uses of a paradigm: "A discipline, as well as the theory(ies) which constitutes a discipline need a paradigm for the following reasons:

1. A paradigm constitutes the "essence" of the discipline.

2. A paradigm constitues the "world view" of its adherents.

3. Scientists in the discipline use the statement of the paradigm to establish the problems which it has to solve (KUHN, 1970).

4. The scientific establishment works usually in the direction of the prevailing paradigm, i.e., its rules and procedures are directed by the currently accepted paradigm (KUHN, 1970).

5. The paradigm is directly implicated in the design of the instruments, apparatus and methodologies used to solve the problems of the discipline (KUHN, 1970).

6. A paradigm is essential to discover (a) "anomalies" (KUHN, 1970) and (b) "dilemmas" (van GIGCH, 1993, p.42).

The same author, with J.L.LE MOIGNE, (1989, p.132) proceeds by examining the questions which a paradigm must answer and enumerates the following:

"1. What are the main sources of knowledge of the discipline?

2. What constitutes the object of study of the discipline?

3. What are the main schools of thought underlying the discipline?

4. What are the main purposes of the discipline?

5. What are the significant instrumentalities (methodologies) used by the discipline and, by derivation, its main activities?

6. What are the anomalies and unresolved problems which are facing the discipline?

"Paradigms influence the epistemology of the inquiring systems over which they dominate and, in turn, the view of reality which emanates from these systems. Paradigms can be compared on the basis of the following headings:

"a) Description of the field,

b) Nature of the domain,

c) Problems to which suited,

d) Applications of the paradigm,

e) Nature of the solution (or of the "truth" obtained),

f) Criteria used to evaluate "truth", and

g) Proof and guarantor of "truth"

Finally, van GIGCH concludes: "We distinguish a paradigm from a methodology by indication that the paradigm is usually "content" or "substance-free", in the sense that it applies to many problems in the domain regardless of their specific content, whereas a methodology is a problem-oriented procedure or approach which incorporates a particular paradigm" (Ibid., p.43-44).

This is why G. KLIR refers himself to methodological paradigms, based on "a particular set of assumptions, upon which different methods may be based… Each assumption contained in a methodological paradigm restricts the applicability of the associated methods and, consequently, restricts the set of possible solutions in some specific way" (1993, p.40). This explains, for instance, the frequently postulated exclusive complementarity between the reductionist and the holistic-systemic paradigms.

It should be noted that, before KUHN's book, "paradigm" had merely the meaning of "example". On the contrary, in the recent years, it has been uncorrectly popularized and used in many abusive ways.

For an interesting general evaluation of the impact of KUHN's work between 1962 and 1990, see J HORGAN (1991).

E. MORIN observes: "A paradigm is unconscious, but irrigates conscious thinking and controls it". It can also thus be said that it is "supraconscious"(1999b, p. 26)

The dominant paradigm in a society determines a characracteristic cultural imprinting (p. 27). The paradigm makes some aspects quite visible, but obscures or suppresses others.