---

writing sesion three

---

Epistemology Paradigm of Philosophy

---

---

Epistemology Paradigm

---

1. Understanding Epistemology Paradigm
   Paradigm in English is called paradigm and French paradigm, it comes from the Latin "para" and "deigma". The mean on the side, next to and deigma means example, pattern, model. While deigma in the form of a deiknynai verb means to show or show something. Thus, epistimologis, paradigm means side of model, beside pattern or side of example. Paradigm also means something that shows a pattern, model or example. Paradigm is also synonymous with guiding principle, basic point of view or basic perspective of science, cluster of thought, model, pattern, sometimes there is also call it context. In terminology, paradigm means bundle of basic idea along with assumption with its idea variable. [1]
   The term paradigm was first introduced by Thomas Khun (1962) and later popularized by Robert Friedrichs (1970). Paradigm according to Thomas S. Kuhn a basic assumption and general theoretical assumptions (is a source of value), so it becomes a source of law, methods, and application in science so it is very determine the nature, characteristics, and character of science itself.
   Scott defines Kuhn's paradigm as:
   a. An achievement, a new, accepted way of solving a problem which then is used as a model of future work;
   b. A set of shared values, the methods, standards and generalizations shared by those trained to carry on the scientific work modeled on that paradigm. [2]

The notion that Scott produces contains some aspects of emphasis is that the paradigm represents, firstly, as a new achievement, which is then accepted as a way to solve problems, and patterns of future problem solving. The interesting point of this understanding is that the paradigm is a problem-solving way that should have a predictive power of the future. Secondly, as a unity of values, methods, measurements and common views that certain scientists use as a scientific way of working on that paradigm.
Mastermann (in George Ritzer, 1980) suggests three types of notions of Kuhn's paradigm, which he considers to be understanding. First, the metaphysical paradigm, second, the sociological paradigm, the third, the paradigm of the constituent. The metaphysical paradigm portrays three functions, referring to a particular community of scientists who: a) focuses on something that exists and what does not exist, b) focuses on finding the central theme of something that exists, c) hopes to find something real -it's really there.[3]

This paradigm is the broadest consensus in a particular field of science. The paradigm of sociology, by Mastermann is seen to have the same concept as Thomas Kuhn, that is, from the real habits, the accepted ideas, the real results of the development of science, and the accepted results of science generally.
While the Paradigm Constraint, the concept of the paradigm the most narrow and real, compared to the above three concepts. For example, the role of paradigm in the construction of nuclear reactors. The above views appear not to be able to explain the concept of paradigm.
Robert Friedrichs (in George Ritzer, 1980) tries to overcome this problem by proposing the following definition:
Paradigm is the fundamental view of a discipline on what the subject matter should be studied (a fundamental image a dicipline of its subject matter). With more intent, George Ritzer tries to synthesize the notion put forward by Kuhn, Mastermann and Friedrich, with the following paradigm: The fundamental view of the scientist about what the subject matter should be by a branch of science (diciplin).[4]

Starting from the various notions that have been mentioned above, the understanding of paradigm by them seems to be buried on several elements, namely:
A. As a fundamental view of a group of scientists;
B. the object of science that should be studied by a discipline; and
C. the method of scientific work used to study that object.
This development seems to be bringing its own problems to the understanding of paradigms. Understanding efforts on the basis of the individual interests of each discipline can lead to a double impact, namely, first, the meaning of paradigm for the interests of each discipline to explain it. Second, the blurring of the essential meaning of the paradigm, from the basic nature of its meaning as originally introduced by Kuhn.
To restore the vagueness that may arise from these notions, the following is raised a synthesis of some users of the term paradigm used by Kuhn in the introduction of his ideas. First, in The Structure of Scientific Revolution, in principle Kuhn discussed the development of science which according to him is revolutionary. Second, what is the center of his investigation in an attempt to prove his thesis of the development is a paradigm. Third, the paradigm is meant by a unity of ideas that is received in a committed manner by a unity of the scientific community, within a certain period of time. Fourth, as a result of the emergence of new symptoms, this old paradigm will fall into several stages of developmental process, an anomaly, a crisis, a revolution, and finally the emergence of new ideas that replace the old paradigm position.
The view between the science paradigm seems to change over time. The development of paradigmatic substance in this paper will be discussed completely, starting from the paradigm of positivism, postpositivism, critical theory, and konstruktivisme. The paradigm shift in science encompasses all aspects of the paradigm. From several cases of changes in the science paradigm that has been described, the direction that reaches is in the form of development. The establishment and the emergence of science specialization are the expectations of the change. The changes are reciprocal with the changing lives of human beings who support them, including mainly developments among scientists.

---

---

REFFRENCE

1. Zumri Bestado Sjamsuar, Paradigma Manusia Surya, Membongkar Mitos Parokhialitas Sumber Daya Manusia (2009), page.12.
2. Sofian Effendi, Paradigma Pembangunan dan Aministrasi Pembangunan, dalam LAN RI, Laporan Temu Kaji dan Peran Ilmu Administrasi Dan Manajemen Dalam Pembangunan, ( 1988), page. 188.
3. George Ritzer, Sosiologi Ilmu Pengetahuan Berparadigama Ganda, (Rajawali Pers, Jakarta :1980), page.5
4. George Ritzer, Sosiologi Ilmu Pengetahuan Berparadigama Ganda, (Rajawali Pers, Jakarta :1980), page .7.