Gene Ballinger asks, "Rol, I would be most intersted in an elaboration of
why information can't fall outside a scientific paradigm."
Gene -- and Andrew, who asked the original question,
I am unsure where I stand on this myself, but let me relate my
reflections.
My simplified definition of a paradigm is that it is a viewpoint about the
world.
At the very broadest level, some people view events around them through a
religious lens, some through a behaviorist lens, and so forth. At a very
micro level, some people view bicycles as something that people need to
sit upon in an upright position, and some people think there may be other
ways to sit on a bike. At one time, some people thought that all problems
could be solved through science. That viewpoint was a paradigm that has
since been proven wrong.
The scientific method, and by close analogy, the Deming cycle, is a _tool_
for gaining insight into information. It has been shown that it will not
gain insight into all information -- ie it will not solve all problems,
but it is a _tool_, and it does sole many problems. In my mind, it simply
does not qualify as a paradigm, because it is no longer a viewpoint about
the world (see definition above). There are other tools for gaining
isight into information. Systems thinking is such a tool, however, ST is
very likely to be a complete subset of the scientific method, and not
actually a new and unique tool.
What other tools are there? Well, perhaps meditation. Parhaps some forms
of religion. As an inventory guy, it would be fascinating to use this
group of thinkers to identify a broad inventory of tools that people use
to gain insight into information. Who else has some suggestions?
-- Rol Fessenden LL Bean, Inc 76234.3636@compuserve.com