Why Our Paradigms Ain't Shifting

Thomas Kuhn - Irritator of scientists and politicians.

If you're not a historian, a scientist, a philosopher or a physicists, you probably haven't heard of Thomas Kuhn, the author of the book "The Structure of Scientific Revolutions" - at least not directly. You may, however, be familiar with the term "paradigm shift". This is the idea that ideas in a particular field or in a person's worldview remain static until enough evidence comes together to change that worldview causing a shift to a new paradigm. Christians call this a "conversion experience". Buddhists may call it "enlightenment". Archimedes responded to his own little paradigm shift by shouting, "Eureka!"  A paradigm shift, one would think, would be a good thing - a step toward enlightenment. Unfortunately, not everyone always thinks so. When a paradigm shift happens in science or politics or religion, such a shift tends to either make the scientist or politician or theologian terribly uncomfortable or ecstatically happy. Martin Luther experienced this elation when he discovered the principle of righteousness by faith while reading the book of Romans. Pope Leo X on the other hand, experienced profound discomfort when Luther nailed them to the door of the chapel at Wittenberg.

Kuhn's book is pretty heady stuff, but let me give you a very rough idea of what he says. Kuhn maintains that science doesn't progress in a straight line, but roughly in a series of steps with a plateau in between these apparent shifts. The plateaus he calls paradigms.  During the period when the paradigm is broadly accepted, scientists (or politicians or theologians) busy themselves proving the paradigm. If enough anomalies arise that don't fit the paradigm, eventually scientists, politicians, et al (usually from among the younger generation whose opinions are more flexible) will begin to develop a new paradigm model which, when enough evidence is gathered, causes the old paradigm to shift to the new one.

In science, you see this happening at the time of Isaac Newton and again with Albert Einstein. Politically paradigm shifts happen around things like the rise of the Roman Empire, the American Revolution and Karl Marx and the Russian Revolution. In the realm of religion, The Buddha, Confucius, Moses, Jesus Christ, Constantine and Martin Luther have all created religious paradigm shifts in their day. The reason a paradigm shift is such an upheaval is because the folk invested in the old paradigm don't want to have to stand up and tell their students that what they were saying last year was, well......wrong!

I think we are facing a number of pending paradigm shifts today and they all seem to be coming together at once. The evidence for this is in the way the various factions are all shouting at each other, desperately defending their own turf, and not actually listening to one another. The arguments rage on and few are convinced of anything.  There is a reason for this as Kuhn points out in his book.

• "When (political or scientific) paradigms enter, as they must, into a debate about paradigm choice, their role is necessarily circular. Each group uses its own paradigm to argue in the paradigm's defense. The resulting circularity does not, of course, make the arguments wrong or even ineffectual. The man who premises a paradigm when arguing in its defense can nonetheless provide a clear exhibit of what scientific* practice will be like for those who adopt the new view of nature. That exhibit can be immensely persuasive, often compellingly so. Yet, whatever its force, the status of the circular argument is only that of persuasion. It cannot be made logically or even probabilistically compelling for those who refuse to step into the circle. The premises and values shared by the two parties to a debate over paradigms are not sufficiently extensive for that. As in political revolutions, so in paradigm choice--there is no standard higher than the assent of the relevant communities."
                                               - Thomas Kuhn: The Structure of Scientific Revolutions.

So the reason everyone is shouting at each other and no one is particularly listening is that we are all defending our paradigms, using our paradigms as self-evident proof that we are right. A hint at how this works can be found in the Declaration of Independence. 

• "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.--That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed../"

At the time and even down to this day and age, the royalists (today we call them "elitists") hold to a paradigm where the above enumerated "truths" are very much NOT self-evident. To them it was and still is patently obviously that some men are naturally superior to others and therefore should, by right, be rulers over what Karl Marx (and King George III) would think of as "the masses" or "the proletariat" - lesser quality humans who require the leadership of their superiors. This doctrine is held to be self-evident by Darwin and by those who believed in the "divine right of kings".

 So in the political realm you have two competing paradigms.

1. Progressive Socialism which, I believe is a direct descendant of the feudal belief in a class of superior people called the nobility, has been invested in the idea of collectivism since it was first articulated by Karl Marx. Marx's model for human evolution saw no problem with the restriction of human rights, if it was necessary for the good of the entire race of man. Today that idea is pretty much that free sex, drugs and rock n' roll should be enough freedom to placate the rubes while their betters run things for them.
2. Constitutional Free Market Capitalism in which the majority of Americans (until recently) have been invested has been the paradigm in the U.S. since the states accepted the Constitution as law of the land. The Constitution itself incorporated long-held Christian values and the philosophy of John Locke and others of the day. Since then, this bunch of rugged individualists, almost unique in history, has been invested in the idea of individualism and personal freedom as the model for human progress and liberty for all. The equality of man was the paradigm of the day at our nation's founding and that paradigm led inexorably to many reforms including the abolition of slavery and the rejection of imperialism as a foreign relations policy tool. The idea of an entitled elite has long been repugnant to Americans. We've believed, until recently, that people should be free to solve their own problems individually and as communities. We don't need no stinkin' Kings (or queens or commissars or dear leaders for that matter).

At this point Progressive socialists are trying to win the debate by convincing everyone they've already won the debate!  Can you say "The political science is settled? The progressive left is using the culture, the news media, the entertainment industry and the increasing power of the government to cause a politico-cultural shift from free market capitalism to collectivism. It's the "everybody knows" argument and however illogical that argument actually is, it's a powerful one given human beings and their natural instinct to join herds of other human beings. The need to belong is powerful and progressives are adept in exploiting that need to their own purposes. The Constitutionalists, conservatives and some libertarians are stubbornly resisting the attempted forced paradigm shift in our culture, but, because we have neglected to maintain control of the education system, the next generation of Americans is coming up already indoctrinated into the progress socialist circle. They are being taught the "obvious" superiority of the collectivist model. Converting our kids back to old-fashioned American values is going to be an uphill battle from here on because most are NOT in our circle.

It's not that we don't have tons of evidence to prove our point or to break down our opponents paradigm model. We do. But like Thomas Kuhn pointed out, we're all arguing from within our own circles, using our own paradigms as a self-evident truth. If those we are arguing with won't step into our circle, then we're essentially talking to ourselves.

We see the increasing tension everywhere in our world today between competing paradigms.

• The Anthropogenic Global Warming "settled science" vs the embattled group of scientists who see evidence to the contrary.
• Conservatives vs Liberals
• Christians vs Muslims
• LGBTQ (or whatever it is today) vs traditional marriage supporters
• Pro-life vs. Pro-choice
• Black Lives Matter vs All Lives Matter

Instead of looking at the facts like we all think we do, we mostly focus on the facts which support our own paradigm. When the sides become so incompatible, a "revolution" occurs. Sometimes it's peaceful, though that's seldom the case with political revolutions. Often it can be violent as it was during the Protestant Reformation, the American Revolution, and the Vietnam War protests.

So what can we do to prevent all these factions from erupting into some new sort of paradigm-based cleansing of opposing viewpoints?  The truth?  Probably not a lot. Scripture predicts a very nasty end is going to happen just about now in Earth's history. Like the Mayans, the Christian prophetic calendar is about to run out.

The Good News?  We can teach ourselves how to argue outside the circle of our own personal belief system (paradigm). We can take a page from Jesus who was very good at it as evidenced by the fact that there are about 2.2 billion Christians in the world today - more than any other religion.  How did Christ do it?  He stepped outside the circle - way outside actually. Here's how:

1. He reached out to the outcasts who had been pushed to the fringes of the Jewish circle - the lame, the insane, the lepers, the tax collectors, the prostitutes and the Samaritans. He drew them in and made them a competing core within the community of the followers of God. We do that by reaching out to those who were once with us, but who have drifted away.
2. He sacrificed himself in a tangible way for his followers. We must sacrifice our time, our energy and our money for those we have lost from our fellowship. They need to know we care about them.
3. He empowered his followers to reach out beyond the circle. His disciples and their converts went out to share the gospel with the Gentiles in every part of the world.  Have you noticed that it is often those who come from the farthest from us, who become the greatest spokesmen for our causes? I think of atheists and agnostics who have become Christians like C. S. Lewis, Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn, and Doug Batchelor. I think of liberals who have become powerful conservative advocates like Bill Whittle, Milton Friedman, Dennis Milller, George Orwell and David Horowitz.

The key thing to remember is that, just because your paradigm says a thing is so, that is not going to be a valid argument to someone else who believes that his own paradigm, religion belief system, or ideology is also self-evident.  Sgt. Joe Friday of the old TV show "Dragnet" perhaps said it best.



The only thing that effectively defeats a stubborn paradigm is the relentless bombardment by facts. Name-calling only solidifies an opponents position. Ad hominem attacks, straw man attacks and any number of logical fallacies will work against you. I highly recommend you check out the link I just gave you. It will help you not only improve your ability to articulate your position, but will also help you recognize flawed reasoning when you are pelted with it by some hysterical ideology who is upset by the facts you present. Here are some basic logical fallacies you should avoid.

In CS Lewis' brilliant children's book, "The Lion, the Witch and the Wardrobe," Professor Digory, when told a thing wasn't logical by one of the children, lamented, "What are they teaching in schools these days?"  I leave you with this clip from the movie (below) so this blog ends on less of a downer.

© by Tom King

* ...or political or religious practice for that matter

What Next? Road Control Laws?



Without roads people wouldn't be able to drive
cars anywhere so they wouldn't have car
accidents anymore and the middle class would
be preserved - right?



I took two graduate courses in statistics and research. One thing I learned is that Benjamin Disraeli’s purported comment about statistics is true.  There are, in fact, “Lies, damned lies and statistics.”  Used properly statistics can be quite useful. They show us which medications work, what problems our society needs to solve and Mark Twain’s overall negativity at different stages in his life.  The study was based on the number of times he used a form of the word “NO” in Huckleberry Finn vs. Tom Sawyer.  It’s burning issues like that now that really show off the power of statistics. 

We are constantly showered with meaningful statistics on the news, in books, magazines and even in our Sabbath sermons. For some reason we accept cold mathematical statistics as proof over almost any other form of persuasive data. After all, how can math lie?

Well you might ask.  The truth is, math doesn’t lie.  People lie. They just use math as a tool to support the lies.  One group uses statistics to prove that gun control doesn’t work.  Another uses statistics to prove that it does.  Throw in a few logical sounding anecdotes and you’ve got enough proof for your average drive-by consumer of information - whichever he happens to hear that most closely meets his already preconceived notions.

I stumbled across an interesting set of statistics from the WHO today that I’d like to throw out there for your consideration and to point out how you can get a wrong-headed conclusion from any statistic.  I was looking at worldwide causes of death as parsed out by the income levels of the country in question.  Of the top 10 leading causes of death, the first nine are all forms of disease. The slaughter caused by so-called “natural causes” runs to a staggering 28.32 million deaths annually. We don’t get to the first non-natural cause of death till we get to #10: Road traffic accidents.  More than 1.21 million people die as a result of road-related accidents.

These roads must be stopped.  Ah, but “No!” says the chairman of the American Automobile Association. “Roads do not kill people.  People using roads kill people.” 

Immediately the chairman of the Amelgamated Society to Stop Highways and Open Lanes from Existing shoots back, “Well that’s just absurd. Everybody knows that when the nation of Lower Bulemia banned roads altogether, road-related accidents dropped by 46%.

Next thing you know, you’ve got some fool in Congress sponsoring a National Roads Limitation Act, especially after he sees polls that say that 52% of people in his district support the idea.

Or better yet, let the progressive socialists get hold of it.  Did you know that according to WHO, road accidents are highest among middle-income nations; ranking seventh in total deaths in middle income nations. Road accidents don't even show up in the top ten causes of death among poor and rich nations.  So, now roads are obviously a threat to the middle class.  Amid much hand-wringing and cries of “What shall be done to save our middle class from all the road-related carnage?”  The media starts pouring on stories about how roads are at war with the middle class and they lay the blame at the feet of the construction companies that build roads.  If it wasn’t for their incessant greed which drives this road-building madness, thousands of innocent middle class people would still be alive and actually going to the polls themselves to vote for Democrats.

“I know,” some bright would-be member of central planning says. “Let’s get rid of roads and we can all ride trains.”  The reasoning is like this.  Poor people don’t drive so that’s why road accidents are fewer in poor nations.  Rich people don’t need to go anywhere on roads, the central planner reasons, because everything gets brought to them by the middle class and the poor, so they don't need to drive on roads. Either that, or they fly helicopters, take their yachts or hire chauffeurs. In any case, the top 1% don’t need to use roads which road accidents don’t make top ten list. 

Therefore, using our best Socratic logic, as learned watching David Letterman on late night TV, road accidents makes the top ten death toll in middle income nations because:

1. Using roads is what kills so many middle class people. 
2. If these roads didn’t exist, middle class people couldn’t use them.
3. If middle class people could no longer use roads and used trains instead then…..
4. The death rate by road related accidents would go down if we passed a law banning roads.

Voila!  Something gets done. A law is passed.  Passing a law is always the solution step on any progressive's list of logical reasons we must do something about anything that shows up in the news. Remember the progressive creed. Never waste a good crisis! And to the progressive socialist, passing a law is always the thing that must be done since passing laws, according to their creed, solves everything.

Of course, nothing ever actually gets done about reducing the number of roads cause to the surprise of central planning, people actually need roads and trains are too danged expensive.  A new federal bureaucracy gets created, however.  It becomes more costly to build roads what with all the new paperwork.  The existing roads deteriorate because instead of maintaining them, the funding is going toward paying for the new road reduction regulations.

And the final kick in the teeth - death by train wrecks rise.

But, what about the dingbat who thought the whole thing up? Well he gets himself re-elected because the media trumpets said dingbat’s spectacular success at getting “important” legislation passed and nobody bothers to ask whether any of his legislation did any actual good.

And civilization careens merrily on down its poorly maintained roads toward a certain destruction of its own making.  God save us all – or at least the 52% of us who want to be saved according to a recent Gallup Poll.

© 12/22/2012 by Tom King

Why Christians Should Stop Arguing with Atheist Progressives

I let myself be lured into arguing with an atheist friend of mine today.  First he said I must believe that Satan was behind the tectonic plate movements in Haiti, since, of course, Pat Robertson said so (which he didn't) and therefore I "must" believe it.  Then he claimed that I was "..trying to use reasoning and evidence, yet when asked for any evidence and reasoning behind the very existence of the devil you are using the defense “it’s a matter of belief.”


Except I never said "It's a matter of belief." He said that on my behalf without any help from me. Then he made some garbled comment about believing in "...talking snakes and drinking blood of dead God on Sundays."  Then, he went right on to "I would like an evidence which would not be riddled by gross logical fallacies" and offered to recommend some books for me to read that would fix me right up with my whole distorted belief system.

Oh, and then he suggested that if I were "intellectually curious" (oh, like George Bush wasn't you mean) then I might actually read some of the great books on how stupid Christians are.

I love it when progressives who are also atheists start tossing around book titles and asking you to prove God mathematically. Oh, and he made sure he pointed out that he has more education than 95% of ordinary mortals so "elitist" was an okay label with him.


The thing is, when you attack someone's belief system, they tend to get defensive. My friend's reaction was to defend his faith. I can't fault him for that. Atheism is no less passionate a belief system than any other religion.  My friend made it clear that I must prove that Satan exists if I am to believe in him.

The problem with that is he is under no similar compunction to prove that Satan does not exist. The fact is, you cannot prove a thing does not exist, only that you have never seen it yourself. I, for instance, have never seen a black hole and neither has anyone else. They can only infer the existence of a black hole by it's effect on objects around it.

I infer the existence of Satan in much the same way.  Progressivism actually began with a fine intent and had some very positive effects on society.  Crusty old capitalists were convinced to voluntarily treat their workers better. Christians began to perform organized acts of charity to improve the lot of those less fortunate than themselves.  But something happened to the movement early on and turned it a nightmare ideology based on beliefs that are totally at odds with Christian principles.  Eugenics, mass murder, persecution and tyranny sprang up from progressive roots with a speed and ferocity that was breath-taking.

The regularity with which this happens in history, points with certainty to the existence of a cool and evil intellect behind this transformation. At least it points with sufficient clarity to convince me that this evil entity exists.  Can I prove he exists? No, for I have never met him, although a person whose veracity I trust tells me she has met one of his agents in the flesh.  I have no reason to doubt her.


I am curious as to why folks like my friend even bother to argue with me.  It makes no sense. Atheists assume there is no God. Researchers like B.F. Skinner, proceed from that assumption and are led, logically, to the conclusion that men's ideas and attitudes and behaviors are entirely the product of operant conditioning. By that logic we basically have no free will.  Free will is, then, an illusion produced by our evolutionary proclivities.  The book he recommended that I read claims that people see meaning in randomness because of our evolutionary makeup and not because there is any inherent truth or meaning in life at all. 


If this is so, my friend's argument is the product of a lifetime of experiences and events that have conditioned him to believe as he believes and act as he acts - nothing more.  If that is so, then he believes what he believes quite by accident.  I, on the other hand, believe what I believe entirely by choice. Logically, he cannot help but pick an argument with me. He is conditioned to do so.  Since I am also conditioned to believe what I believe, according to his belief system, then neither of us are arguing because we want to, but because we are conditioned to.

Logically, only a person with free will could choose to stop the argument.  The responsibility, then, for ending the argument is entirely mine.  Since my belief system says that I am able to choose, I, therefore, choose not to argue.

Don't worry about my friend. He'll ramble on a while, score what he thinks are a couple of devastating points and then move on, congratulating himself on how he showed me up!

I love making atheists happy.  They have so little to be truly happy about.

I'm just sayin'

Tom King - Flint, TX