In the first post, Applying Kuhn’s Structure to biological aging research, part 1: initial questions I formulated some naive and direct Kuhnian questions apropos of philosophy and history of aging research. It’s time now for some history and philosophy of science provocation though. Let’s get to the point quickly in the form of forming a bundle of propositions which I call the First Paradigm Hypothesis of Aging Research. It is currently made out of 5 different claims (the number of propositions can change in the light of further analysis):
- Biological aging research finally has the first functioning paradigm in place.
- All the existing research on aging so far (=<20th century) was not really based on an easily extractable paradigm, so it can be considered pre-scientific in that respect. It belongs to the pre-history of aging research. (2. is corollary of 1)
- Aging research is inherently political as it centers around human application.
- Pre-history of aging research was characterised by political oppression, taking fixed, non-malleable nature of aging granted. (this is 3/A so applying 3. to pre-history)
- The new first paradigm is political too, but it is now actually enabling research and amplifying it. (this is 3/B so applying 3. to current events).
Arguing for the following 5 propositions demands different strategies. Continue reading “Applying Kuhn’s Structure to biological aging research, part 2: the First Paradigm Hypothesis”