Humanities desk
< November 11	<< Oct \| November \| Dec >>	November 13 >

Welcome to the Wikipedia Humanities Reference Desk Archives
The page you are currently viewing is an archive page. While you can leave answers for any questions shown below, please ask new questions on one of the current reference desk pages.

November 12[edit]

Theory/Paradigm[edit]

Hello, What is the difference between a theory and a paradigm? Thanks for giving your time.Kooz (talk) 10:53, 12 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

As far as I know, a theory is a construct, and a paradigm is a manner of thinking that gives rise to the construct. Plasmic Physics (talk) 10:57, 12 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thank youKooz (talk) 11:26, 12 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

We have articles on theory and paradigm. One common mistake: in science, a theory is very different from a hypothesis. The key is that in a scientific context a theory is a whole body of knowledge frameworks, reasoning, and findings, while a hypothesis is an educated guess that might be true. You might hear someone say "evolution is just a theory" - and yes it is, but so is e.g. gravitational theory, the germ theory of disease, and many other well-accepted concepts. SemanticMantis (talk) 15:51, 12 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I would say paradigm is the broader concept as used in most fields (although these issues always come down to defining the words the way you want to use them in your context and being consistent). For example, before the discovery of the chemical synthesis of urea, it had long been thought that there was a fundamental split between organic and non-organic substances, with only living beings being able to create organic substances. this theory was part of the vitalism paradigm that held that there was a "vital essence" which was no found in the non-living world, sort of the biological equivalent of the luminiferous aether. Vitalism had gone along with Cartesian dualism, the theory of the humours, Lamarckism and so forth.

Over the 19th century it became obvious that even if we could not yet synthesize some substances in vitro, we could break them down into non-living parts with no vital essence left over. The Darwinian [[theory of evolution arose, and the Mendelian theory of genetics, as well as the germ theory of disease, cell theory (tested by the existence of viruses. The paradigm of the modern evolutionary synthesis finally replaced the last vestiges of vitalism, and was capped of with Watson and Crick's theory of the central dogma, explaining the central role of DNA in all cellular life.

Likewise one could talk about the Newtonian paradigm of absolute space, the dichotomy of light as waves and matter as particles, being replaced eventually with the post-Newtonian paradigm theories of relativity and wave-particle duality. I'll leave that to a physicist.

Finally, there's Thomas Kuhn whose famous and highly influential The Structure of Scientific Revolutions popularized the term paradigm shift. The book is excellent reading, a necessity for any scientist or philosopher, although I disagree with a lot of its relativism and other premises, which I won't go into here. μηδείς (talk) 22:09, 12 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

How to advance in politics[edit]

Hello and thanks to everyone in advance. Once you're a member of a political party, what is the best way to climb up the political ladder? Should you just work hard for the party and attend as many party events as possible hoping to get noticed, or is it better to play the "it's not what you know, it's who you know" game? --Shinrita (talk) 21:41, 12 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

1) That question's entirely dependent upon which nation's politics. Advancing in North Korea, Iran, and Canadian politics are all going to be completely different experiences.

2) Up at the top, it says "We don't answer requests for opinions, predictions or debate." For many nations, there are no guaranteed methods (or else there wouldn't be elections, just some probability calculations), so claims of how to advance in those systems are ultimately going to be user opinions about a given political process. A better question would be "who were some successful politicians in X nation/state/country, and what actions and conditions are usually attributed to their success? Even then, there's issues of timing. Alexander the Great was an amazingly successful politician for his time, but openly invading other countries tends to be looked down upon these days.

Ian.thomson (talk) 21:55, 12 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Ian is very wise in his answer, but I would object that Alex was really a military leader (and also ruling monarch) rather than a politician. Had he not been monarch, he would not have been able to lead his nation (and its subjects) to war. Had he not been successful in war, he would not have been ruling over anything extra. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 22:01, 12 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I would disagree, considering the fact that Alexander was actively involved in attempting to gain the crown of Macedonia during the reign of his father, which does show that without a political nous it is unlikely he would have become king (considering the establishment of a new royal line with Philip's second marriage would have cast Alexander out of the succession). Uhlan ^talk 23:32, 12 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

What?!!! work hard for the party and attend as many party events as possible hoping to get noticed, or is it better to play the "it's not what you know, it's who you know" game. Everybody plays those games. One has to be a cryptic Niccolò Machiavelli. Those types however, don't need to ask on Wikipedia for career advice. Try getting interested in an avenue that benefits mankind – you will find it more rewarding- even if it denies your ego the chance to explode .--Aspro (talk) 23:59, 12 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. Make your Country a better place for those supposed to vote for you. Any status you might get by intriguing well or using elbows will depend on them. My vote is gone forgood by your post. Same goes for clients in economy. --217.84.65.27 (talk) 18:08, 13 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Lie. HiLo48 (talk) 00:06, 13 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

One of my relatives was a politician and I estimated once that he knew at least 3000 people and possibly a lot more by name and who they were related to and something about them. I never knew him not to know something about a relative of someone he was introduced to. So "it's who you know" is very important. He was rather too honest though so never made it into the government. You're not dependable if you're too honest. Dmcq (talk) 00:29, 13 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Politics is about the aquisition of power. So if we ask "After I have joined a political party, how do I gain more power?" the answer becomes more apparent. Fiddlersmouth (talk) 00:43, 13 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This seems strangely like a request for opinions. Does anyone have a reference (instead of an anecdote) to offer? --Onorem (talk) 00:53, 13 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps a look at Politics would be helpful . . . Uhlan ^talk 00:59, 13 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

If you're going to reply to me, perhaps you'd like to actually address the point? --Onorem (talk) 01:11, 13 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I was referring to the original question asked at the start of this thread, not your comment. Uhlan ^talk 01:34, 13 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Please look into how indenting works in conversations then. --Onorem (talk) 01:41, 13 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

No problem. Uhlan ^talk 01:47, 13 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) Politics can be a dependable career, if you understand the career track. If your idea is "Think I can just put my name on the ballot and suddenly get elected" you aren't going to make it far. Most politicians start off working for other political candidates, often as unpaid interns in their youth, then after doing that for a few years, as paid assistants to politicians or political parties. After a while, someone in the party may tab you as a likely candidate for office, where they'll polish you up, run you in a campaign, and see if you get elected. If you prove electable, you'll continue on that track for as long as it will take you. If you aren't, you'll probably continue to work behind the scenes, doing things like working as a campaign manager, chief-of-staff, lobbyist, or other unelected, but increasingly well paid jobs, until you retire at a decent old age. If you look at the career track, it doesn't look all that different from any other profession:

1) Unpaid internship-type work

2) Entry-level, low-paid, low-skill work while you network and show your dependability

3) Differentiation based on your skill set, where you find a specific career track within the field

4) Advancement within that career track until you reach the highest level your skills/networking/luck will take you, and in which you continue to work until you

5) Retire

That applies to any job, so long as you understand that just like not every computer engineer gets to be the CEO of Apple someday; but most computer engineers can make a pretty good living for their whole lives; not every political worker gets to be President of the U.S., but most people working in politics makes a nice career out of it. Pick any politician you can think of, you'll see they follow this basic career track. For some examples:

Bill Clinton: unpaid Interned for a Senator while in College, worked (paid) on the McGovern campaign while in Law School, got known within the party enough to score a nomination for a House of Representatives election, which he lost but did well enough to score further nominations, won several increasingly prominent elections, stayed in politics until eventually becoming President.
Tony Blair: Became involved in politics while at University, formally joined Labour party at graduation, started running in small local elections, eventually became an MP, got noticed, moved quickly into party leadership roles, became PM.

Those are just a few prominent examples I pulled out. Politics is not the sort of thing most people just fall into; but if you are deliberate, well trained, and have an aptitude for it, you can make a career out if it; using the exact same methods as any other career (networking, putting in your time in entry-level positions, working hard, taking advantage of oportunities for advancement, being open to use your skill-set appropriately, not being locked in to an unattainable goal but taking advantage of opportunities when they arise, etc.) --Jayron32 01:01, 13 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the great answer Jayron32. On another note, why is Macchiavelli even regarded as a master politician when he was never able to attain high office for himself, not even as the power behind the throne?--Shinrita (talk) 06:55, 13 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Machiavelli is famous because his treatise on politics, The Prince exhorts leaders to achieve their political goals through nefarious means. True, he never really achieved high office, but that was unlikely anyway because 'high office' in those times was usually 'the King' of a country. People just know Machiavelli as being as a 'master' because of The Prince which became so famous. Uhlan ^talk 08:25, 13 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

When read in isolation, that's the impression one is left with Machiavelli, but in the whole context of his life and the rest of his writings, it's clear that the Prince was supposed to be a satire pointing out the flaws with monarchy, indirecting extolling the virtues of republics. Ian.thomson (talk) 18:29, 13 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

A related question: Is it always essential to start very young? Do you know of cases of people starting in politics only later in life (say between 30 and 40) and still attaining high office? Or is it that if by age 18 you're not out there already involved in and working a party you're already way too late at the (other) party? Contact Basemetal here 09:28, 13 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

In America it seems to be possible to move into politics from the military, provided you've reached high enough rank and public prominence. Al Haig was 44 when he became part of the Nixon administration as Military Assistant to the Presidential Assistant for National Security Affairs, Colin Powell was apparently 58 before he even decided which party he supported, and going further back Eisenhower was in his sixties before he let himself be dragged into standing for President. There's also showbiz. Our article on Ronald Reagan mentions no political activity before his anti-nuclear activism aged 34. --Antiquary (talk) 11:09, 13 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

And I was forgetting Arnold Schwarzenegger, who was in his forties before he took any prominent part in politics. --Antiquary (talk) 11:32, 13 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

There will always be people who enter a career track late in life, and are successful. The existence of the rare, unusual, or unique example does not mean that is the reliable course a person should take. The question is different whether one asks "What is the usual career path for a person who spends their lives working in politics" versus "Has there ever, in the course of human history, been a single person who has deviated from the standard career path in anything ever". The second question will always produce positive results. It doesn't make the answers to the first question invalid. --Jayron32 11:40, 13 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Actually I should've better worded my question. I was thinking of my question as a companion question to the OP's. Since most answers to "How to succeed in politics?" focussed on stories of people who started very young I was thinking of my question as a "How to succeed in politics when you have not had the luck or foresight to start very young?". I was not suggesting that it was a sensible career path to just wait if at 18 you are truly interested in politics. I was wondering: what if a person discovers at 30 or 40 that they are interested in politics? What can they do to succeed? Is there a way to still succeed or is that path essentially closed? (Except for a small number of high profile generals in the US.) I was interested in answers from all over the democratic world although it seems America is the only place for it. It does say something about our democracies that (with the exception of the US) a political career at a high level seems to be closed for all but the political nerds who at 12 already knew they wanted to become prime minister. For any person who, after having had some experience of life, realize they want to contribute in politics, the answer seems to be "too late". If that is truly the case it is interesting. Contact Basemetal here 08:03, 14 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Probably the same, except you are starting later. You're first goal is to become noticed by the gatekeepers who control access to the career. Start by volunteering to work on campaigns, or work for a local political party, networking and getting known by the party from whom you're going to need support to be elected sounds sensible. You can just apply and put your name on a ballot for an election sometime; that's the minimum requirement to get elected, but that sounds about as likely to get you into the career as buying a lottery ticket. --Jayron32 10:45, 14 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I think Antiquary has a point about mentioning America here. I'm not American but have the impression that it's relatively common for American politicians to enter politics late. I suspect this is related to the use of primary elections in USA. Candidates in other countries are usually selected by active paying party members who may tend to prefer people they have personally known and trusted for many years in the party. PrimeHunter (talk) 03:01, 14 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]