Consider a train journey. You are all alone and surrounded by a crowd of people. There is a toddler accompanied by his father who is bawling at the top of his voice. You do not react initially. The kid, however never stops. He goes from crying to shreiking and shouting at the top of his voice. The father stands next to him making no effort to console him. You shall then, of course start juding him. After a while, people are so irritatated that you approach the father and ask sternly to make the child calm. You are firm and quite understandably, mad at the child and also the father.

The father is expressionless and appears blank. He looks at you and replies, "I have already tried everything. We are just returning from the funeral of my wife who was bed-ridden for a month. The child is deeply moved. If you can, please try to calm him down. All my efforts have gone into vain".
What would be your reaction, then? Would it be filled with anger and irritation like it was a moment before? Certainly, not. Within an instant, all your beliefs take a total 180 degree flip. You feel sorry for them and the cry no longer appears irritable to you.

This, is paradigm shift. Well, although not exactly the way the example illustrates but the essential idea behind it is the same. "A complete transformation of your beliefs and ideas, i.e your perspective, when exposed to a new piece of information or knowledge".

Honored to answer your A2A Issac.

It is appreciable that you want to change. But change is intrinsically hard since it requires people to operate outside their comfort zone and that brings fear, uncertainty, risk and anxiety. So,

• the first step in change is realizing that one needs to change. You are already there.
• The next step is knowing what to change, why change fails and how to change
• The last step is executing on the change within.

Since you have already seemed to have realized that you need to change, let’s focus on the step 2. There is a beautiful model that shows why change fails in any organization.

Change fails when we don’t

a) Know where we are heading: i.e. lack of vision

b) Have what is necessary to be successful in the new model i.e. lack of skills

c) Align our mind & life to reward ourself to the new way of life or new paradigm i.e lack of incentive to change

d) Leverage all our assets to get rid of the old (companies, habits, friends, environment etc) and usher the new i.e. lack of resources

e) Plan and execute on the plan to change i.e lack of initiative or action plan.

We need all these five fixed and aligned so that we can change to the new paradigm effectively.

Once you have this fixed, the step 3, is simply execute on the plan, re-evaluate periodically and measure your progress.

Hope it helps.

A Paradigm shift is defined as “A fundamental change in an individual's or a society's view of how things work in the world”. Let me explain with a example from my life.

I was once waiting at a Bus stop in Dubai just opposite our apartment waiting for a bus to take me to my office in Burdubai. I usually drive to work but I was around seven months pregnant and sitting behind the wheel was getting increasingly difficult with my huge belly. I decided to take public transport. It was a quite a while since I had taken public transport and I was unaware of the new NOL card system (this is a smart card used to pay for public transport like Bus, Metro etc.) The last time that I travelled by bus, tickets were issued by the driver on boarding ) I was reading a book and was waiting for the bus to arrive. In comes a lady wearing an Abaya (which we know as Burqa in India) with her face covered with the black veil. Now, my assumptions about Muslim ladies covering their faces was that they are ultra-religious, orthodox, narrow minded, uneducated, won’t even bother to speak to anyone outside their religion etc etc etc. “Why on earth would anyone want to hide their faces and their identities from people? I pretended to be busy reading and this lady sits next to me and in a very friendly tone greets me and upon seeing my pregnant belly enquires about my health, which doctor I’m seeing, and gives me general tips.

The bus arrives and we both board the bus I ask the driver for a ticket to Burdubai…he says I can’t issue a ticket , you need to swipe the NOL card. Embarrassed and confused and not knowing what to do I start to get down the bus. Now my dear lady quickly comes to my defense and argues with the driver how can you refuse a pregnant woman from making that journey, cant you see how tired she looks, please take my card and swipe it for her trip too. Since the same card cannot be swiped twice the driver had to refuse but he stopped at a vending machine so that I could buy a NOL card. The lady accompanied me throughout and helped me with the entire process.

This episode for me was what I would like to call a Paradigm Shift.

I was extremely ashamed for all those assumptions made by my filthy little mind just based on a garment that these women chose to wear. A huge learning experience to not to be judgmental about anyone or anything.

This is a good question and in an area I don’t usually answer, but since I have worked with many people who have changed their lives and from my own experience, I can give you some pointers. Here’s the steps I would take if you want to shift your life and see things in a different paradigm:

1. Reduce any clutter around where you work and live. This can sometimes take a lot of work but you will find once you start and continue, it becomes easier. I can’t tell you how many times just this step changes a lot!
2. Build your calendar for the week ahead, even if you might not believe you could live up to it. Write exactly what you would like your week to look like. Write in a book that is close to where you work or hang out so when you have an idea you can write it down easily. (It’s not the completion but the writing and imagining that is important.)
3. Take at least three times a day to answer the questions : What am I good at? What makes me happy? What do I want? You don’t have to write the answers down but you can. Just think about them until something sticks. And it will.
4. Get plenty of rest, good food, fresh air, exercise and time with people you like.
5. Do something each day to help someone else and be grateful for what you have.

Change will happen.

Quantum mechanics (QM) indeed contradicts naive realism, but there is no consensus yet regarding what QM means (i.e., how to interpret it). So, despite the fact that it has undermined the existing paradigm, there is no paradigm yet that has replaced it. Consequently, there is a crisis of meaning at the foundations of the presently dominant scientific paradigm. How this will ultimately play out is difficult to discern.

It may be of relevance to note that the Copernican shift from the geocentric to the heliocentric model of the cosmos is still not reflected in our common terms such as "sun rise" and "sun set." In addition, despite Einstein's theories, people commonly regard space and time as absolute instead of dependent upon the reference frame, and gravity is still commonly considered a force rather than the curvature of space-time. The reason, of course, is that naive realism, despite the fact that it does not hold up to philosophical criticism or scientific advances, remains very useful in the context of everyday life.

That’s a bit of a truism, or?

A paradigm is a set of key concepts (hence: ways of thinking and living) accepted, internalized and therefore lived up by the wider society at a certain point in time.

Hence, in other words, a paradigm assembles the cornerstones of how society collectively refers to all significant aspects of its material, cultural and spiritual existence, at a given time.

So, how a paradigm „shift“ can‘t be important? How can anything else be more important than a „paradigm shift“ for the „collective identity“ of any human community, or for humankind as a whole?

What I would rather ask is how predictable are the triggers of such „paradigm shifts“ and how long it can take for those triggers to be identified as such and for the „shift“ to complete?

I hope it is prescription drugs and their perceived value in society. In 20 years I hope health care and our outlook on it advances to the point where we realize many of our prescription drugs are merely masking health issues that can instead be be resolved with different health care. There are outliers where people certainly needs certain drugs to live, but at this point it is heavily taken advantage of. People feel they need medication when they do not, doctors prescribe it to them b/c they make money from it, and after time the patients actually do become dependent on the overpriced meds, and the prescription drug companies (#1 lobbyists in Washington) bask in their profits.

Is it "right" to deprive someone of their Xanax (anxiety medication)? Many would say no now, but in 20 years I hope people reassess. People need to stop looking for "quick fix" pill to solve their problems and understand that more drastic lifestyle changes and sacrifices are necessary to achieve a truly healthier life. There will still be people with severe conditions that will need some of these drugs, but many of these subjective diagnosis' end up with patients unnecessarily addicted to drugs and wasting their money on them.

Paradigm shifts are very important. Just imagine if we still believed that the earth was flat, or that we existed at the centre of the universe. It is only when we realize that these long held beliefs are not true, does science finally move forward.

We still believe that time actually exists thanks to Einstein's relativity. But where is the observational proof that time actually exists so time can then be dilated? Time dilation is like believing that we still exist at the centre of the universe. A paradigm shift is now needed so science can finally move forward. This paradigm shift will allow man to finally travel at velocities far in excess of lightspeed.

Man made atomic clocks count differently in different gravitational strength fields. They call this difference time dilation, but it is only the difference in how many oscillations have been counted. The oscillating rate of motion in the atomic clock, changes with any physical difference in reality especially gravity.

An atomic clock is placed on every floor of a 100 story building, directly below a GPS.

A duration of X is equal to one of earth's 360⁰ of rotation. A duration of X is also equal to all of those individual atomic clocks in every 360⁰ of earth's angular rotation motion. This remains a fact no matter where the atomic clocks were in the building, or even if the atomic clock was in the GPS. This is because all the clocks always existed simultaneously with the Earth, no matter where they existed.

Therefore the duration for all the man made atomic clocks and the original rotating earth clock are always exactly the same. This is because the duration is always X for all of the clock's no matter where they are positioned.

You can do this forever and the answer is always the same. All of the clocks existed for exactly the same duration X, in every 360⁰ rotation of the earth. The clocks only travelled different distances through space, during that duration of motion that we call time.

The angular rotational motion of the earth is not affected by the earth's gravity, but the atomic clocks certainly are.

The motion in all man made clocks are affected by gravity and this is why they count a different numbers of oscillations in those different strength gravitational fields. This is because the duration between those individual oscillations has changed, relative to the gravitational strength field that they are placed in. Simply think about how a duration of motion in a pendulum clock is also effected by gravity. Even a pendulum clock counts a duration of motion not time.

Just imagine that you placed all of those 100 atomic clocks on the ground floor in individual rooms. The temperature in each room was set to a different temperature. The atomic clocks would now also count a different number of oscillations. Have we now created time dilation due to temperature not gravity? This is how ridiculous Einstein's time dilation theory is.

I have previously posted many articles on this subject, which prove that Einstein's relativity is totally delusional. But it is still followed without question by all of his devout cult followers.

It’s good to wonder about this. I suggest paradigms are the frameworks of logical associations that constitute ‘normality’. For example, if someone is driving a car then that car will eventually need to stop at a gas station - or at least that was the case until a paradigm shift toward electric engines took place.

We work within paradigms. It would be most odd if one mathematician came to a group of peers and said ‘I have a new arithmetic that we must employ’. That would render every current calculator (and, more importantly, every previous calculation) obsolete. Hence, we see that alternative paradigms (like the ontologies they support) are never compatible. When a new paradigm is employed, everything means something different. For example, what was a ‘social media platform’ in the sixties? A bunch of friendly journalists standing on a stage?

Hence, paradigms are things that you don’t really notice when they’re working well. They comprise ‘the way things relate to one another’ such that we can understand how things work. They are the status quo.

Like the ground we walk on, we tend not to pay too much attention to them until they shift - then it can feel like the whole world has been translated…

So, um…how do we get home now?

I like to use the following nice and elegant story to illustrate the concept of paradigm shift, so as to allow you to grasp what it is more quickly:

"Hundreds of years ago, in medieval Austria, a small but determined army was trying desperately to hold on to its fortress against tremendous odds. For more than six months, the defenders had been surrounded by a hostile army, With no way to contact outside help to replenish their stocks, supplies had dwindled to a desperate level.

Only one cow and two bags of grain were left.

The fortress soldiers, wracked with fatigue and hunger, turned to their commander for guidance.

Expecting their leader to say the expected, "Ration the food for as long as we can hold out," they were astonished and perturbed when they received a different, radical reply.

"Kill the cow, stuff it with all the grain we have, and toss it over the walls when the next wave of attack ensues."

This seemed illogical, foolhardy, and dangerous.

During the next attack, they followed the unexpected order and heaved the grain-stuffed cow over the wall. Without a doubt, they anticipated a slow, anguish death by starvation. To this day we don't know why the soldiers complied.

But the commander had foreseen something that no one else had.

Confused by the bovine assault, several of the attackers took the cow back to their officer's tent. The attacking officer saw it for what it was - a signal of defiance from the fortress commander, as well as well as a message that his soldiers had the will to fight on. If they could afford to throw a cow stuffed with excess grain over the wall, he reasoned, they must have vast stores of supplies, enough to last the entire winter. he ordered an immediate retreat."

This is a great example of applying the concept of paradigm shift to produce a novel solution.

The fortress commander stepped outside the logic of the battle and delivered an unexpected message.

The counter-intuitive, resoundingly clear message:

"We have plenty of supplies; prepare for a long battle."

Clearly, the competition didn't know he was up against a paradigm shifter, who was able to shift his vantage point 180 degrees to see opportunities, solutions and strategies others didn't even know existed.

The story is excerpted from one of my favourite books on paradigm shifting, 'The Advantage Makers: How Exceptional Leaders Win by Creating Opportunities Others Don't', by Steven Feinberg, a turnaround strategist, who has spent more than three decades applying the study of human behaviour to performance efficacy.

In fact it came from the first chapter of the book, entitled 'How to Shift the Odds in Your Favour in the Best of Times and the Worst of Times'.

…

How would you influence society to create a paradigm shift?

…

Even if you could influence society they would only deny their redemption.

You see, the paradigm shift from the childish win/lose mentality to a mature and wise Win/Win and the model change from “for profit” to “not for profit” only exposes the perverted people as the perverted people and only “losers” are perverted people in the minds of the perverted so the Soul-U-Shun can only be denied by the perverted

Catch 22 for perverts eh?

Not to worry, the highest potential of the poor perverted people of the win/lose mentality is everyone loses. AKA Hell on Earth.

Only when this current population of brainwashed “for profit” economic slaves and human filth suceed in wiping themselves from the face of the earth will good and decent people be “allowed” to practice and achieve the Holy and Divine Win/Win.

But like I said, don’t bother telling that to the human filth. lol They are too busy being “normal”.

“Normal” the new retarded. As in “limited” and “held back” and “unable to achieve the highest potential”.

The humans ability to be good and decent people was severely retarded by the practiced win/lose mentality as civilized, sane, wise, and honorable.

Imagine being so mentally compromised that you can only declare the word that best describes your pitiless condition as no longer valid. Just an insult used to offend.

And it’s so funny too, because only the afflicted are offended.

Good luck, not that it will help any of us now.

Thomas Kuhn introduced the notion of a scientific paradigm in his seminal work, The Structure of Scientific Revolutions. From there, the term paradigm was popularized and generalized to refer to a framework that we use to understand and do things. We could define a paradigm more precisely as having the following components:

Exemplars. A paradigm’s exemplars are usually its creators who are then held up as pedagogical models for later generations to emulate. For example, Newton.

Symbolic generalizations. These are formulas expressed in the paradigm’s technical language which state its fundamental principles. For example, F=ma.

Ontological models. These are the metaphysical assumptions or beliefs about the nature of reality which are held by members of a community adhering to a common paradigm. For example, physical reality consists of material bodies in space and forces that act upon them.

Shared values. This includes things like aesthetic standards, such as simplicity and elegance, which guide scientists in their selection of competing theories.

Epistemological criteria. These criteria determine what a community accepts as being valid ways to gain knowledge.

So, a paradigm shift is a change from one paradigm to another, typically involving basic changes in the fundamental concepts that define the paradigm. In physics, for example, quantum theory represented a new paradigm that changed some of the basic notions of the nature of matter and energy.

Possibly, the paradigm that climate change or rather climate disaster through neo-liberalism, is not an illusionary concept within their own nation, but that it is happening across the world, and of all places (which should surely be sacrosanct?) in the good ole’ United States. The people have seen for themselves the devastation caused by savage American forest fires destroying fellow citizens homes in minutes. They have also seen and heard about the raging floods, the rapidly diminishing ice in the Arctic regions, the egregious plastic contamination from the results of unnecessary over consumerism, which is polluting the seas, and to a considerable degree, killing off the sea life over virtually all areas of the planet from the deepest waters to the highest mountains. They have seen the extinction of animal life, and both that of past flora and fauna which will never be seen by future generations, because of profit being given priority over people.

They have seen the inequality that is leading to mass migration and homelessness. and should through this, have also realized that the current American systems and those of most of the world, that allow such iniquitous disparity between the rich and the poor are now failing the vast majority through corruption, greed and fear. That minimum interest rates along with massive amounts of hundreds of trillions of dollars of quantitative easing have had to be instituted by weak government treasury’s to even allow business privatization to survive They may also have reasoned by this, that the vast majority of the rich are not usually in that position because of greater brainpower or have worked harder than the average member of the impoverished economically and socially overlooked sector; far more likely, these individuals have been unjustly and unfairly over-privileged, through family inheritance or similar connections, and also, invariably through the fraudulent neo-liberal policies of government intervention allowance, providing the upper earning sector with every greater privileges and subsidies - although many of the latter provided within an almost secret structure of government, of which the majority of the people are totally unaware.

Complex financialization is nothing less than financial terrorism by the asset speculator mafia. Manipulation through financial engineering is the main source of the neo-liberalism economy. State corporation fraud is well known within its own circle as the ‘sunset technique.’ The often used austerity is a rather useful tax increase, just for the public service workers and the socio-economically deprived - including many key workers, who actually saved big private and corporate business from once again crashing into the standard failure pattern of disaster - to then enable the top 1% of the 10% earners to enjoy even further tax benefits. For this is essentially what state capitalism is all about. Derivatives and stock- by-back-options, with rent-seeking corruption from non-regulatory practices of distorted accounting and what is virtually deliberately corrupt overseeing of the corporate predation and malfeasance from market-captured governments. This is a major part of neo-liberalism.

Few people outside the secret circle, realize that financialization (big business and corporate enterprises), makes far more out of its political investments than through any productive investment. The majority of investment is anything-but productive. Instead it is about buying into existing spurious capital assets to just milk them by short term-ism, and rarely, to create anything new. Predatory and indiscriminate credit lending creates exorbitant land and property prices which have prevented most of the young generation from participation, Off-shore tax havens, insider trading. illegitimate power structures and authority are bleeding the majority. That is why wealth is going up exponentially while real capital is going down. But principally, this is due to capitalization of rent promoted by sociopath leaders and their fraudulent political systems, only to please corrupt markets - which can never be free - and their neo-liberal ideology. We can have a few people with great wealth or we can have democracy and human rights. We cannot have both! But neo-liberalism doesn’t want both for that is an anethema. However, their indoctrinated promotion of trickle-down economics doesn’t work either, for it simply creates income stagnation, one of the reasons for increasing low productivity.

Neo-liberalism also enthusiastically espouses the diminution of corporate welfare, human rights, growing worker insecurity through divesting them of their own clubs (the trade unions) and deliberately introducing the fear factor with even that of the deliberate diminution of democracy. For it detests the idea of equality and of justice for all. it is terrified of the thought of public services, because this means expending what they consider is always their ‘rightful’ profit mantra for the benefit of others not worthy of anything but continual hardship. Any form of a social community that has a voice is really despised, for capitalism requires a placid consumer who buys and buys indiscriminately, just to make more profit for the few, and always against the interests of the vast majority who are the proletariat - and they must not on any account be given a voice to protest against neo-capitalism; for these are considered just the serfs who work for the employee controllers and also, naturally, for the minimum amount that they can get away with, or horror-of-horrors, they might be subject to an uprising, this, even potentially leading to revolution. After all, neo-capitalism must have certain bounds to protect its own fraudulent interests!

Deceptive framing, deliberately masking and manipulating the true facts through fabricated imagery has been perpetrated by neo-liberalism. The illusion of control is dominating politics and institutions. Power has migrated from the political sphere to the economic sphere. We are essentially dominated 24 hours a day by their money and their markets. Hostility to any form of socialism (even co-operative socialism by communities) by main-stream media is willingly promoted. This has now become highly polarized with financialization controlling right-wing media and abysmally weak neo-liberal government systems who themselves are controlled by being initially bankrolled by them.

Stockmarkets’ are breaking records with profits exponentially skyrocketing into the stratosphere. Likewise, property and land values are increasing at an alarming rate dangerously disenfranchising many of the lower income groups. But genuine equality of opportunity for the lower echelon of society, and even in many instance, the lower-middle class is also depreciating. Private profit is killing off national economic sustainability, which would enable all the people to have an increasing quality of life. Profit is basically a fancy name for exploitation of the majority of the population; while dirty money is conquering the world and the very worst detritus of humanity are dominating our lives.

International globalization by neo-capitalism through neo-liberalization, is virtually a senate to prevent any semblance of equality and to increase surveillance and suppression under the contemptible lie of what is commonly referred to as protection of the state. Anarchism should really be called truism for population consciousness is an enemy of the neo-liberal state: ‘fast-track’ essentially, means free trade agreements which are not for the benefit of the proletariat, but are solely for the continuing and increase of investor rights; to then deregulate any overseeing of ensuing corruption. Multilateral agreements are virtually in place and enforced by neo-liberal cohorts virtually to lock countries into increased privatization. With potentially, corporate courts - this is where corporate and big business - without any form of redress available - are allowed in totally private sessions, to sue anyone including national governments for any amount they wish - if anyone has the audacity to prevent maximum possible profits from being made - even from that of totally unsustainable over consumerism - leading to potential investor infringement. whether or not this entails destroying the welfare of millions of people and the destruction of the environment, or by the same process, of war or through total toxic overload in the process, is of no consequence.

With neoliberalism, private luxury must always without exception take priority over public sufficiency. Money, markets and profits are its wealth god. Instead of the nations’ natural wealth being used for the good of all, it is totally the reverse; only being conserved for the good of the few. Think Tanks are another way for neo-liberalism to give the impression that it is acting in the interests of all society, rather than its actual original intent, to make the rich richer and make it ever easier to prosper, and in so doing, necessarily imposing continuing dis-empowering restrictions on the majority population sector, to ensure beyond a shadow of doubt, that these will continue to slave for them, and thereby increase their self-enrichment and self- aggrandizement. Remember true democracy is a threat to any power system.

However the most abject aspect of neo-liberalism, is that of the disastrous anthropocentric problems of anthropogenic -emissions of sulphur dioxide causing extreme global warming. This has to be ignored by markets for ultimate financial gain and short term-ism. For as neo-liberal neo-capitalism’s mantra states. Markets always know best!

There’s two real basic shifts that need to occur.

The paradigm shift from win/lose to Win/Win, and the shift from “for profit” to “Not For Profit”.

The work and the Ways of the Win/Win are simple really. People who are unable to work together in respect, dignity, and diplomacy for the greater good, the highest potential, the Win/Win, do not advance to corrupt the process of Win/Win.

Only those who can do so will advance. When the Win/Win is not achieved, no action is taken.

The Not For Profit is a little more touchy because it is so “out of the box’.
It’s about the “Economics of Time” and there’s no money involved. It’s about the worth and value of our time and energy exchanged for equal amounts of whatever time produces.

In my reality, the time and energy “spent” in production renders the product paid for and the lie of profit can only corrupt this reality by claiming you can get your “spent” time back and not only get it back but now it’s worth more because of the lie of eternal growth and profit.

A community owned “Not For Profit” Economic Win/Win based in time alone, backed by the abundance of our world, and built upon a foundation of truth and reality. No gold required, no lies of greed called profit.
Profit is the method used to concentrate the abundance of our world into the hands and control of the few, the elite, the entitled, and the great winners in a perverted world of win/lose.

You can’t get yesterday back in any form or fashion except memories and they too die with you.
The worth and value of our time and energy must reflect this reality.

In my reality, the time and energy spent in production renders the product paid for.

Everything we desire or require can be calculated in the human time required for production and exchanged for equal amounts of anything time produces.

As it is, we are far past the point of no return because the highest potential of the poor perverted people of the win/lose is everyone loses. AKA Hell on Earth.

Think of the abundance of our world transformed into the worth an value of our time and energy and kept in circulation for the benefit of all. This worth and value would compound annually until the future child is born rich instead of being boar a slave to an un-payable debt of lies and corruption called eternal growth and profit.

In reality, nothing grows for forever.
Have a great one.

The concept of a paradigm in the technical sense (which I think you're referring to) is usually attributed to a philosopher named Thomas Kuhn. His work is particularly important, has he drew the Philosophy of Science far closer to the history, anthropology and sociology of science. Whatever you think of his ideas, he was therefore instrumental in bringing about the contemporary state of affairs in the Philosophy of Science, where the history of science is an integral part of understanding science and the norms guiding it.

Anyway, blurb over. I'll give a rough-introduction to Kuhnian paradigms - there is loads of great literature out there for you to look a bit deeper. And Kuhn's "Structure of Scientific Revolutions" is a good place to start.

Paradigm originally meant something like "exemplar" so both are close in meaning to this, and both are close to Kuhn's meaning, and they do get the general point across. But as you asked about paradigm shifts we ought to talk Kuhn, as he's the guy that came up with the concept.

His account was slightly more nuanced. A paradigm is an idea or body of ideas and the application of those ideas. Examples include Ptolomy's mechanical model of planetary motion, Mendeleev's periodic table, Einstein's general relativity, Newton's laws of motion, and so forth.

The paradigm is the exemplar of a discipline. Work is evaluated against this core body of work, and it is a measure against which the ongoing science in that discipline is held. The tools sourced from these paradigms are used to construct explanations, resolve issues and generally develop the science.

A paradigm shift is thus the overturning of old paradigms with new ones. People often refer to the shift from a Ptolomaic to Copernican, heliocentric system is often treated as such a paradigm shift. Newtonian ideas to Einsteinian, relativistic ideas are another.

It is the overturning of old ideas, replacing them with a new set of ideas. With the shift comes not only new ideas, but new terms will be introduced, a new "taxonomy" will mean that previous terms will no longer be used.

A few things that a worth noting:

• A paradigm shift doesn't mean things are getting "better" or that our paradigms are becoming more "true".
• Kuhn isn't going to say that the shift in paradigms is overnight, or even a neat process. It's combative, with those who are in favour of the paradigm-in-decline fighting to retain the paradigm (in a sciency way, not - well not usually - with boxing gloves)
• Kuhn's account of paradigms and paradigm shifts while hugely influential is not widely accepted in either History or the Philosophy of Science.

This last point is important. It is a hugely influential work, and really helped to advance many ideas, and as I said at the beginning, really helped to encourage interdisciplinary cooperation.

But that does not mean that this is treated as a good model of scientific development. Nor does it mean that many think that his other, related theories (such as the incommensurability of scientific terms) is widely accepted. I'm quite suspicious of many of Kuhn's ideas - and very dubious regarding the historical narratives he constructs. But I recognise his impact, and I do often find his notion of a "paradigm shift" to help clarify the terrain. It's a useful tool, but that's as far as I'd go. But go have a look at the Revolutions book and see what you think. There are plenty of resources out there, and numerous commentaries.

Go explore!

Most likely not. Nature is cyclical. Change is a certainty and it involves movements in directions opposite to the prevalent norm.

Nobody knows yet I think what causes humans to want to expand all the time. As long as life endures on this planet, men and women will try to be better, faster, stronger. That will set ripples in motion so the shifts will last only as long as the next big idea.

I believe norms have fulfilled needs specific to the times in which they came up. It is a matter of lottery which generation gets caught in the upswing or the downswing.

For instance, I call my generation and the immediate next as the “mighty parents” . We saw our parental authority dismissed. Our kids missed the milestones we grew up taking for granted. It was very tough to maintain balance between parenting and befriending our children.

I in particular, struggled very hard with not knowing what kind of future I was preparing my daughters for.

A typical example or pattern of something; a pattern or model.

A set of linguistic items that form mutually exclusive choices in particular syntactic roles.

Example of a paradigm:

The definition of a paradigm is a widely accepted example, belief or concept. An example of paradigm is evolution. An example of paradigm is the earth being round.

Paradigm and Paradigm Shift:

A paradigm shift, a concept identified by the American physicist and philosopher Thomas Kuhn, is a fundamental change in the basic concepts and experimental practices of a scientific discipline. Kuhn acknowledges having used the term "paradigm" in two different meanings.

Paradigm theory:

Thomas Kuhn suggested that a paradigm defines “the practices that define a scientific discipline at certain point in time.” A theory is a testable hypothesis within a paradigm. So, in psychology, theories of neurochemical influences can be tested.

I created a simple idea… in fact, the simplest idea possible to explain the Universe.

I try to remind people of that simple path, but I was called Quaint… Joke etc…

Then I polished the idea, begged for criticism for 12 years… Then a Cosmology PhD Student from Berkeley told me that my work wasn’t consistent with astronomical observations.. That puzzled me, since it should. I don’t do this for a living, so up to that time, I hadn’t found the source of those astronomical observations. I knew that that should be the Supernova Survey.

I guess, someone post it eventually and I found it.

When I tried to just applied the idea in a straightforward manner, it didn’t work. The reason being is my theory predicted that Gravitational would be stronger (inversely proportional to the 4D radius of the 4D lightspeed expanding Universe). That effect does not have a straight linear relationship with luminosity.

I asked the nice people from Quora how Supernova explosions would depend upon Gravitation. A nice fellow redirected me towards Chandrasekhar masses. They have a [math]G^{(-3/2)}[/math] dependence.

That didn’t cut yet. I had to delve deeper into the complexity of the nuclear chain reaction and how the observable depended upon Chandrasekhar masses.

The observable was not total (integrated) luminosity. That might have a simple relationship with mass. The detonation process have only a brief observable period where light is able to scape. After the initial burst, EJECTA clouds the environment and the rest of the nuclear process becomes a diffusive one.

Astronomers concluded that a larger ejecta means longer diffusion period and also larger peak explosion, so they devise WLR (width-luminosity relationship). WLR scales the time profile such as to, in effect normalize eject. The details of the procedure is beyond my research, but the goal is to normalize all Supernova explosions. Normalizing means, make them to have the same volume, amount of ejecta on average.

This means that if one shortens the time profile, the peak should scale up ( like keeping the total area under the curve constant). That would be consistent with the concept that longer time profile means stronger explosion.

The side effect of that procedure is to change the rate of build up of the luminosity. Luminosity is proportional to[math] ^{56} Ni [/math]. If WLR scales up the peak luminosity and shorten just the diffusive part of the process, then that is equivalent to normalize all volumes. The time to reach peak luminosity is the time for the detonation to reach the surface. If you keep that the same, then you are normalizing the volume (model ask for coasting velocity to be constant). The peak luminosity is proportional to [math]\Delta T \frac{d[^{56} Ni]}{dt}=k[C][C]*\Delta T [/math]

where [math]\Delta[/math] T is the time taken for the detonation to go from the core to the surface under coasting velocity conditions.

Arnett first demonstrated that at maximum light the instantaneous bolo-

metric luminosity is approximately equal to the instantaneous rate of energy

deposition by radiative decay.

So the peak luminosity (the observable in those measurements) is left with a clear dependence upon the Chandrasekhar mass.

Further analysis would indicate that we are ‘observing’ only the early stages of the chain reaction when intermediate product population is minimal.

The process that leads to normalized peak luminosity is dominated by the first step of the chain reaction. Remember, the White-Dwarf precursor is mostly Carbon and Oxygen.

Now, the peak luminosity depends upon [[math]C]^2[/math]. Since the volumes are normalized and the masses have [math]G^{-3/2}[/math] dependence, the peak luminosity acquires a [math]G^{-3}[/math] dependence. This yields an overestimation of the distance by [math]G^{3/2}[/math] or [math](\frac{R_0}{R(t)})^{\frac{3}{2}}[/math]

These are the clear assumptions. One might debate them. They might be right. They might be wrong. That is open to discussion. Up to now, the only objection I had, was a baseless “I don’t believe this or that”. That has not weight.

It is easy to add meat to the argument by just stating the fact that this chain reaction is a detonation process and it is not happening in equilibrium. The intermediate rates are supposed to increase tremendously with the released energy, so one does not expect that any intermediate population to accumulate during the ramp-up of the luminosity. After that, nobody cares, since it is not an observable.

This is the weakest point in my argument.

Compare that with Inflation Theory where the Universe expands at billions /trillions of times the speed of light, space stretches…etc…then slows down…etc… dark matter is added to the soup together with dark energy to keep the expansion going.

I might be wrong, but I believe the model should receive some minimum attention and be discussed a little…:)

With respect to the Standard Model. My theory provides the coherences for W (wekeast force…:), provides reasons for structured scattering (quarks) and provide a path to predict all particles (I already assigned all hyperons and isotopes).

All the knowledge about scattering channels is not lost. One just has to recast one language into another. Just a simple map. That knowledge informs us about the space elasticity tensor.

There are things that you don’t need to ask any more such as the mass of the Neutrino… If you do, you should distinguish between inertial mass and gravitational mass…etc If you want to make antimatter, you might want to ask other questions.

You also don’t talk about geodesics, General Relativity, Friedmann-Lemaitre model…etc.

So there is a clear path for a paradigm shift.

Summary:

For a paradigm shift to occur, one has to provide a clear path, show the advantages of leaving your old tools and embracing a new way of thinking.

That is hard, especially hard on the people who could contribute the most to the new paradigm. These people are the ones with the brightest minds and highest prominence.

They are shy with respect to taking positions..They have more to lose. They have to come down from a Higher Horse…:) They are more attached to their ways of thinking… they know more… They wrote books on subjects, which are now in conflict with the new paradigm…:)

If I could, I would use my magic wand and make their transition easier. Either that, or making them more vocal critics of this new paradigm.

It is either right or wrong. We should find out! We should discuss it (before I forget the subject).

What does the word paradigm shift explain?

Thomas Kuhn’s description of how scientists do their work in his book “The Structure of Scientific Revolutions” introduced people to the idea of a paradigm shift. Kuhn explained that a paradigm was everything that a scientist uses to interpret observations, including principles, methods, and cultural ideas.

Kuhn argued that most of the time scientists perform “normal science” which can be easiest described as “adding more digits to the right of the decimal point,” that is, making our observations more accurate. We then compare those more accurate results with our models of what should be happening, and if things still match we’re happy.

But when things stop matching there’s a problem. Either the observations are wrong, or the model is wrong. One example that a lot of people probably know is the precession of Mercury’s orbit. Calculated according to Newton, there was something wrong when you looked closely enough.

Newton’s mechanics was the paradigm by which all astronomical observations were made. As a result astronomers started looking for an unknown planet inside the orbit of Mercury. Such a planet could mess with that precession, and such a planet was the one way to make the measurements match what the model, Newton’s mechanics, predicted. (The fact that people were looking for a planet can also reflect cultural expectations - no one expected a massive alien mothership, for example.)

Einstein’s Theory of Relativity, which arose out of a fundamental change in how we understand space and time, was another way of fixing the discrepancy.

Mind, for quite a long while the Theory of Relativity was just a “good trick,” and it took a while before enough observations accumulated to convince scientists that it was a better model.

This is the paradigm shift: from Newton’s mechanics to Einstein’s mechanics. Suddenly reference frames mattered. Acceleration mattered. The speed of light in a vacuum was always the same, no matter who measured it, so that how we understood space and time completely changed.

The word paradigm shift explains this fundamental change. From the outside looking in it might amount to a headline or two, but for scientists it’s literally world changing and mind bending.

What comes to your mind when you hear the words paradigm shift? What experiences come to mind?

I have had the wonderful opportunity to encounter this interesting term back in the late 80's when I read the self-published classic, 'Discovering the Future: The Business of Paradigms', by author-filmmaker-futurist Joel Arthur Barker, and I still believe he has given the best definitions, starting with “paradigm”:

• paradigm: a set of rules and regulations (written or unwritten) that does two things - i) establishing or defining boundaries; ii) telling you how to behave inside the boundaries in order to be successful;
• paradigm shift: a change to a new game, with a new set of rules;

In his classic, the author has used the Swiss Quartz Crisis of the 1970's/1980's to illustrate “paradigm shift” elegantly.

A quick one:

1. Before the late 60's, the Swiss watch industry enjoyed a well-protected monopoly for centuries as no one could touch their expertise, craftsmanship and quality.
2. They had 65% share of the global market.
3. They had in fact invented the quartz watch mechanism in the late 60's, but were skeptical of the new technology. There were few moving parts.
4. They even displayed it at an exhibition in Geneva during the late 60's.
5. Two enterprising companies, Seiko of Japan and Texas Instruments of the United States saw it, and took advantage of the emerging technology.
6. To the chagrin of the Swiss, they didn't even bothered to patent it.
7. Seiko released the world's first quartz watch, Astron, a.k.a. Swiss Watch killer, followed by numerous models after that.
8. Many once profitable and famous Swiss watch houses became insolvent and disappeared.
9. Between 1970 and 1988, the Swiss watch employment fell from 90,000 to 28,000 workers.
10. The global market share of the Swiss watch industry fell to less than 10% in the late 80's.

The counterpoint to this story is that the Swatch Group of Switzerland, today's global leader in watch making, eventually bounced back after the Swiss Quartz Crisis.

As Joel Arthur Barker puts it so eloquently, "when a paradigm shifts, everyone goes back to zero."

Ask yourself:

• what paradigms am I stuck in now?
• what can I do to shift them?

Frankly, looking back at my own life, being married to a foreign national, and then subsequently having moved from a First World City of Singapore to a Third World City of Ho Chi Minh, Vietnam, has had been quite a paradigm shift for me.

[2016_Paradigm Shift]

The paradigm shift that I have in my mind right now may change at least our world-view. It is also very important, especially for those working in molecular biology, as it has been said:

“Nothing in molecular biology makes sense expect in light of the evolutionary history of organisms” •-Russian-American geneticist Theodosius Dobzhansky

Paradigms are the written or unwritten “laws” that have to be followed by resarchers in a field. They exist in all fields, but they become known as paradigms mainly when there is a shift. There has been paradigm shift e.g. when Einstein showed that Newtonian physics does not explain physics in the right way. In astronomy, the geocentric world view was substituted by the heliocentric world view. I think that is the best example of a pardigm shift. It shows how a new way of thinking results in a major simlification for researchers in the field. Einstein explained the constant speed of light, and his new theory had a lot of consequences, especially in atomic physics. But the old physics was not simplified. In biology there has been several shifts of paradigm. Most known is Darwin´s new paradigm for the explanation of evolution. Lynn Margulis tried to introduce a new paradigm shift, to a large extent back to the old Lamackistic view. But instead there will be another shift of paradigm, which has just started: . Today biological evolution theory is dominated by the endosymbiosis theory, which states that mitochondria and chloroplasts invaded a eukaryote to become organelles. This theory is a headache each day for researchers trying to explain various observations. There is however a much better way to explain it. Instead of positing that bacteria invaded eukaryotes, I posit that the organelles were created in eukaryotes, some of them escaped from their host and became bacteria. Thereby the origin of bacteria is also explained and a lot of problems are avoided. The theory that explains this, the Organelle Escape Theory, will be a paradigm shift in association with the Eukaryote Extension Theory, which explains how eukaryotes occurred. The theories are evaluated and found to be much better than existing theories. The endosymbiosis theory is also disproved. Many project will be very much simplified. Thereby it has a lot of similarities to the geocentric/heliocentric paradigm shift.

I’m surprised no one has answered this question yet. The simple answer is the word shift, meaning a change in the paradigm or a switch to a new paradigm. Paradigms, by their nature, represent a way of thinking about or framing a particular problem domain or area of operations. A paradigm shift occurs when some people/institutions start using a different framing or way of thinking about such a problem domain or area of operations. In some cases, the new or changed paradigm becomes the dominant one used by the affected population, and may even replace the old paradigm completely. More commonly, the old paradigm continues to be used by some, usually because there are context and environmental domains where the old one is still better than the new, shifted, paradigm for some purposes.

The process of shifting to a new paradigm usually takes quite a bit of time, often measured in years and even decades or centuries. Mental models change relatively slowly in a given population. Institutional inertia further slows paradigm shifts - and opens up opportunities for new institutions to insert themselves into a market or operational domain. SpaceX is a good example of this phenomena with its shift to reusable rocket boosters and commercial launch services model - as opposed to expendable rockets and government contracting model (the previously dominant paradigm)..

It's not a joke, though it's not a very good question.

"Naive realism" is a real thing, kinda sorta. It's a simplified version of Philosophical realism, a serious philosophical position, more or less. I have to keep qualifying it because every term in philosophy is subject to numerous, incompatible definitions that just accumulate over time without ever reaching any sort of resolution. But they are serious modes of study.

"Naive" means "widely but uncritically accepted, without an understanding of the subtleties and conflicts that have been uncovered in those serious modes of study". That is: naive realism is the idea that there really is a world out there, or at least some kind of it. That wouldn't seem to be controversial, but if you take a really hard epistemological and metaphysical look at things, it's not as obvious as it first appears.

The question itself, though, appears to take a rather naive view of what it is words are. It's dumb to ask what kinds of things words would mean under a different paradigm without telling me what kind of other paradigm you have in mind. Ditching naive realism would change what it means to be a word, or to have words, so the answer to the question is "What blog did you read 'naive realism' in? Stop reading it." It's atrocious philosophical babble. Not a joke, I imagine, since the words aren't completely random, but it doesn't admit of a direct answer, either.

A paradigm is a mental model or approach to thinking about some given problem. Generally, it refers to groups of people instead of individuals.

For example, in the 1960s, robotics research was focused on using logic, and only logic, to govern robot movement. It failed. In the 1980’s there was a “paradigm shift” where people realised that a more reactive approach was needed.

Another example is that before Charles Darwin, most people accepted that different animals were created by (whatever god they believed in) and were unchanging. Darwin’s theories caused a paradigm shift, where everyone (except for a few crackpots) knows that animals evolve.

From dictionary.com, a paradigm is a typical example or pattern of something; a model. It is nothing more. New models (paradigms) replace old ones, as we gain knowledge.

Paradigms are important because they provide a framework for communication of ideas. Progress in many areas can be made because everyone involved are working within the same framework and using the same vocabulary. The extraordinary leaps of discovery often involve the creation of a new paradigm. Einstein’s theory of relativity, Newton’s (and other’s) creation of calculus, Planck and others creation of quantum theory. There are many more examples, but they all involve creating a paradigm.

To me, the best definition of paradigm comes from the classic, 'Discovering the Future: The Business of Paradigms', by author-film-maker-futurist Joel Arthur Barker, which I have had the wonderful opportunity to peruse back in the late 80's:

"... a paradigm is a set of rules and regulations that does two things:

(1) it establishes and defines boundaries; and

(2) it tells you how to behave inside those boundaries to be successful."

He adds:

"... Words that represent subsets of the paradigm concept:

theory, model, methodology, principles, standards, protocol, routines, assumptions, conventions, patterns, habits, common sense, conventional wisdom, mind-set, values, frames of reference, traditions, customs, prejudices, idealogy, inhibitions, superstitions, rituals, compulsions, addictions, doctrine, dogma.

Words like culture, organization, worldview, business, education did not appear because they are forests of paradigms..."

In the words of Exodus, “It all depends who’s ox is being gored.” The paradigm shift from horse drawn buggies to gas powered cars was certainly negative for the buggy-whip trade.

Let’s consider an evolutionary metaphor: a paradigm shift means a change in environmental circumstances. If the environment were perfect for striped fish, then something dramatic changed making striped fish vulnerable to predation, while making “mottled” fish more camouflaged, that shift would be considered positive bu the survivors and negative by the eaten.

But, more importantly, “paradigm shift” is always bad — it’s a mushy concept of corporate jargon that is usually nothing more than rhetorical catnip, like “best in class,” “computer assisted design,” or “game changing.” Empty and useless.

I have had the wonderful opportunity to encounter these two interesting terms back in the late 80's when I read the self-published classic, 'Discovering the Future: The Business of Paradigms', by author-filmmaker-futurist Joel Arthur Barker, and I still believe he has given the best definitions:

• paradigm: a set of rules and regulations (written or unwritten) that does two things - i) establishing or defining boundaries; ii) telling you how to behave inside the boundaries in order to be successful;
• paradigm shift: a change to a new game, with a new set of rules;

In his classic, the author has used the Swiss Quartz Crisis of the 1970's/1980's to illustrate both terms elegantly.

A quick one:

1. Before the late 60's, the Swiss watch industry enjoyed a well-protected monopoly for centuries as no one could touch their expertise, craftsmanship and quality.
2. They had 65% share of the global market.
3. They had in fact invented the quartz watch mechanism in the late 60's, but were skeptical of the new technology. There were few moving parts.
4. They even displayed it at an exhibition in Geneva during the late 60's.
5. Two enterprising companies, Seiko of Japan and Texas Instruments of the United States saw it, and took advantage of the emerging technology.
6. To the chagrin of the Swiss, they didn't even bothered to patent it.
7. Seiko released the world's first quartz watch, Astron, a.k.a. Swiss Watch killer, followed by numerous models after that.
8. Many once profitable and famous Swiss watch houses became insolvent and disappeared.
9. Between 1970 and 1988, the Swiss watch employment fell from 90,000 to 28,000 workers.
10. The global market share of the Swiss watch industry fell to less than 10% in the late 80's.

The counterpoint to this story is that the Swatch Group of Switzerland, today's global leader in watch making, eventually bounced back after the Swiss Quartz Crisis.

As Joel Arthur Barker puts it so eloquently, "when a paradigm shifts, everyone goes back to zero."

Ask yourself:

• what paradigms am I stuck in now?
• what can I do to shift them?

[20160426_Paradigm Shift]