Science & the Integral Paradigm

11 Guests, 0 Users

I'm glad I didn't have to fight in any war. I'm glad I didn't have to pick up a gun. I'm glad I didn't get killed or kill somebody. I hope my kids enjoy the same lack of manhood. ~ Tom Hanks

Advanced search

Dilber MulticolorMarley TPSMF Default Theme -

[Francis]

The stated goal of integralism is to replace all existing paradigms with a single, hybridized, integral worldview. Integralism supplants existing paradigms via a process of truncation and assimilation. It postulates that every other paradigm is ‘true but partial’, implying that every other validated paradigm can sometimes be false and misleading when viewed from certain perspectives and/or in certain contexts. Integralism seeks to strip away these deficiencies by truncating the false and/or misleading aspects of various ideas and then combining the residues of pure truth into the new paradigm.

Implicit in the integral ideal is the notion that one formulation will fit all cases. This of course is a fundamentalist agenda. This universal formulation has not even been fully worked out yet, so we’re asked to pledge allegiance to a work in progress. Back in the integral kitchen, they’re busy chopping up ideas and paradigms, tossing out the ‘partial falsehoods’ and adding only the ‘truths’ to their new hybrid paradigm.

Although the integral proponents claim fidelity to science, they fail to do so in one important aspect. As yet, no paradigm has ever solved all the problems it defines (Kuhn). Unlike religion, where fixed paradigms are the norm, science has found that most of its tenets are ‘true but partial’ The idea of universal laws of science may be intuitively appealing; however there is no scientific basis for the existence of any truly universal laws. The so called ‘laws’ of science are given the moniker because they appear to have a very wide range of validity. Some are even valid in all known contexts and, presumably, from all known perspectives. Yet, the hypothesis that any universal laws actually exist cannot be scientifically verified since it’s not feasible to test an idea in all contexts. Scientific validity, by definition, depends on experimental verification.

As Kuhn aptly chronicles in his seminal work, The Structure of Scientific Revolutions, the history of science is replete with failed paradigms that were once thought to be universal and later found to fail in certain contexts. Applying a paradigm in a domain where it has not been tested is called ‘extrapolation’. Extrapolation has misled many a scientist and is generally considered unreliable by most prudent scientists, thanks in part to the work of Kuhn.

If there is one universal law of science, perhaps it is that: All validated paradigms are true but partial. Put another way: Constant change is here to stay.

[Jana]

I get your beef with integral but all this was worked out in the 90's...now we are just getting on and doing our thing. Rather than be an anti-intregralist integralist...why not flesh out what it is you are in the positive. Anyone who is following packaged or institutional spirituality is lost...so no point in joining the lost even in antithesis. You are too big to be wasted at such a small game.
The integral framework is constructed for maximum corporate efficiency...the impulse behind the message is essentially sound...that of multiplexive vision...consider it all to be an interim step. It might sound like the standard dogma, but it is not set in stone. The main problem with integral is that it is not yet challenged by the next big thing. Perhaps you may be instrumental in bringing that next thing into existence...for me it is sovereignty...what is it for you?

[jimtzu]

what was the description given when Michael first created this playground... post-integral?   

[Francis]

For me, it's:

Creeds and schools in abeyance, Retiring back a while sufficed at what they are, but never forgotten, I harbor for good or bad, I permit to speak at every hazard, Nature without check with original energy.