Further notes about the morphostasis concept – split files

(05) Notes, 6th January 2000

I suspect that many or the executives of normal science (particularly in immunology) are incensed that I have not done (and have no plans to do) any personal (conventional) research. The dominant paradigm of "normal science" is that it works hard towards exploring a current paradigm by a process of conventional exploration by laboratory or observational research. In contrast, my pre–occupation is probably seen as parasitic – feeding off the hard work and perceptual efforts of the most notorious extant workers in the field. From the start, my belief has been that the conventional view is absurd – it's not a front runner. It has also been my view that we are probably awash with basic, reductive research. We have no absolute need for new research to restructure the paradigm. New research has undoubtedly been helpful in pointing the way more clearly; but why do it (particularly if you can't because of your circumstances and commitments) when there is enough to find already to shore up a new perception?

Thomas Kuhn had this one sussed out too. He realised that paradigm shifts don't occur on the back of new research – the need to shift paradigms is already evident in extant work (nb the evolutionary analogy). If it wasn't there would be no justification for shifting paradigms in the first place.