Paradigm arguments are circular
When paradigm debates (or arguments) occur, they tend to be circular, in that each group argues for their own paradigm from within the circle of their paradigm. Because new paradigms are incommensurable with previous ones, communication does not readily happen between the paradigms. It is only when one is willing to step into the circle of the other that communication can occur—otherwise the argument is merely one of persuasion, not logic.
When 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 that paradigm’s defense. … 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.[1]
See also:
- New paradigms are incommensurable with previous ones
- Paradigms can have phenomenal longevity
- Perception is Reality
- Paradigm shifts produce partial overlaps