Immovable Belief
My first introduction to Waldorf Education was through my daughter Kim. She was attending a Montessori school and Debra, one of the teachers, was just finishing her Waldorf training. At the end of Kim’s first year at this school I was disappointed. Kim could not read and not only couldn’t she read but had no interest in reading. Debra in such a kind voice told me not to worry; she’ll read when she’s ready. At the end of second grade she still had no interest in reading but loved to hear stories. I felt trapped. Kim loved school so much that the thought of taking her out and placing her in public school did not make sense. On the other hand, I was extremely uncomfortable talking to neighbors about paying tuition to a school and not seeing any results. By the time Kim was in third grade I was frazzled. Debra assured me that she played well and everything was in place for her to learn to read. I was paying tuition for Kim to play? It was after Christmas of her third year that she learned to read. The experience of seeing a child suddenly learning to read was amazing. She read books, signs, menus, and anything that had words. One morning, while driving Kim to school she asked me why bridges were icky. At the end of third grade she was reading on a third grade level.
The second encounter with Waldorf education came soon after my former partner Lisa and I moved to Vermont. Lisa was asked to teach sixth grade main lesson at a small, rural Waldorf school. I watched and gave my opinions from the outside. It made no sense to me and I could give at least a million reasons for my disapproval of this educational system. The school was in need of an assistant in the kindergarten and I was asked to apply. I was the only one to apply and somehow I found my self inside the walls of this crazy school. The children were not learning their colors and numbers in preparation for first grade. They were instead busy playing, listening to stories, and baking bread. My educational foundation was built in the public school system. I had taught Chemistry and I knew what children needed to learn to be able succeed in school. As time went on my foundation started to crumble. I let go of many of my views about how children should be educated and new concepts came to light. Some ideas from the past still made sense and help me fill out the whole picture. This process not only took me years but is still going on and I can’t imagine it ever stopping. I resisted the initial change. First, it was so hard for me to see that there was another possibility, another reality. Secondly, it was much easier to remain in familiar territory. I was so comfortable in my view that it prevented me from seeing anything different.
A psychological experiment done by J. S. Bruner and Leo Postman in the 1940’s demonstrated resistance to change from preconceived beliefs or ideas. Playing cards were flashed to an individual. Most of the cards were normal, but some were altered. There may have been a six of hearts with the heart colored black instead of red. The four of spades may have been red instead of black. When the abnormal card was flashed the individual recognized the card within the framework of their belief system. When shown the black six of hearts the person would recognize it as the six of spades because in their view hearts are red. As the frequency of the abnormal cards was increased many individuals in the experiment recognized that something was amiss, but could not place what it was. They would comment that the border of the card was different, still maintaining the basic belief that spades are black and hearts are red. With further repetition certain individuals suddenly recognized the abnormality after which subsequent irregularities were noticed immediately. In time others saw the abnormalities leaving a few that could not pin point the difference. These individuals became greatly distressed by the experiment. One person exclaimed, “I can’t make the suit out, whatever it is. It didn’t even look like a card that time. I don’t know what color it is now or whether it’s a spade or a heart. I’m not even sure now what a spade looks like. My God!”1
Individuals acquire a belief system that is so strong making it hard to see the possibilities out side of ones viewpoint. This can be thought of as a model or framework of thought in which one’s life is guided. A household will also live under a collective model. The rules in which the household lives molds the perspectives of the individual members. This collective model can be extended to a town or local area, state or province, country and the world. Such a model is referred to as a paradigm. Thomas Kuhn, in 1960, used this term to describe an established scientific belief. A paradigm used in a more diverse sense can represent the entire view or belief system that a society maintains. Paradigm, a framework of thought, can also refer to a part of the entire belief system (paradigm). In other words, many smaller paradigms make up the main societal paradigm. When a paradigm is incorporated into society all of the individuals work within the guidelines of the paradigm. Education supports the paradigm so subsequent generations are born into the paradigm. Society lives the paradigm, eliminating any possible alternative. The model becomes so strong and ingrained that any change is met with great resistance.2
Paradigm shift or change in the belief system is a new way of thinking about old problems. The best example is illustrated in the history leading up to the Industrial Age. What was the process that led to the Industrial Age? Aristotle (384-322 BC), using his senses, was able to develop his scientific ideas by seeing the whole and then developing particulars to explain how the whole worked.3 This way of working became the scientific paradigm. In Aristotle’s world the earth, sun, planets, and stars were all perfect spheres, a property handed down from the Gods. The heavens orbited the earth in a perfect circle. Quantitative science was left out of Aristotle’s work.4 Archimedes (287-212BC) started with the particulars to form a general whole theory. Archimedes applied mathematics and experimentation to specific problems. A hypothesis was proposed, then logical consequences deduced and through experiments the theory was proved. Using this method, a system of levers and pulleys (machinery) was devised that is still used today.5 Aristotle’s already existing paradigm prohibited advancement in this new way of thinking. The model of the heavens could not explain why the planets, at times, would move backwards (retrograde motion). Using Aristotle’s framework, Ptolemy (100-170AD), developed a model to explain the movement of the planets. The model was complicated with the planets making loops while revolving around the earth. Ptolemy’s model could predict the planets positions using Aristotle’s general theory.6 With the planet’s movements explained, Aristotle’s philosophy was further established.3 Archimedes frame of thought would have to wait for centuries.
In the 1200’s science-philosophy and theology were fused together by the teachings of St. Thomas Aquinas (1224-1274). The Bible and the Aristotelian view were joined as one. It became hard to consider one without considering the other. This new relationship between religion and science made societal change difficult.7
It wasn’t until the early 1500’s that Aristotle’s theory of the heavens was challenged. Nicholas Copernicus offered a new model. The sun was at the center of the universe (heliocentric) and the earth along with the planets revolved around the sun. Copernicus held on to Aristotle’s belief in the divine sphere making the orbits around the sun perfect circles. This simple model could explain the motions of the planets and predict their positions with relative accuracy. To predict exact positions minor adjustments were made. Copernicus emphasized that this was the way the planets moved and was not just a convenient model to use to predict planetary positions. This heliocentric theory was only considered by certain mathematicians and was not accepted or taught by the majority.8 Johannes Kepler (1571-1630) challenged the divine sphere. Kepler was deep in controversy, not only in straying from the age-old Aristotelian view, but also in struggling for religious freedom. At one point in his life he had to move from Austria to keep his religious ideas intact. He believed that the Copernican heliocentric theory was basically correct. In describing the Copernican model Kepler stated, “I have attested it as true in my deepest soul, and as I contemplate its beauty with incredible and ravishing delight.”9 Kepler, through observation and mathematics, worked hard to further explain the motions of the planets. He felt that the sun provided the force to keep the planets in motion and this force diminished with distance. In 1600 he met Tyco Brahe (1546-1601), an astronomer who recorded years of observations on the movements of the planets. With this data, Kepler determined that the orbits of the planets were not circular; they were elliptical. His views eventually dissociated him from the Lutheran church. The union between the Aristotelian view and religion was so strong that new ideas brought about reprocussions.10
Galileo Galilei (1564-1642), an acquaintance of Kepler, was the man who would meet the Aristotelian paradigm head on. Although deeply religious, he felt that science and theology were separate and each should be allowed to proceed separately. Throughout his years he attacked the Aristotelian viewpoint. Only through the understanding of mathematical language could the problems of the universe be solved. As written by Galileo in the Assayer, “this grand book…cannot be understood unless one first learns to comprehend the language and read the alphabet in which it is composed. It is written in the language of mathematics, and its characters are triangles, circles and other geometric figures, without which it is humanly impossible to understand a single word of it: without these, one wanders about in a dark labyrinth.” Galileo studied Archimedes’s approach to scientific research. Quantities instead of qualities were emphasized. Observation and experimentation of scientific problems would pave the way for general theories.11
The universities, during this time period, had a monopoly on information. The professors accepted and taught Aristotle’s view, ignoring Copernicus’ theory. Galileo promoted the new ideas and with sarcasm attacked the universities’ paradigm. He assembled a telescope and offered the public the chance to view the heavens. Anyone could see that the Milky Way was made of stars, that moons revolved around Jupiter and that Venus had different phases like that of our moon. When given the chance to view these phenomena, some professors refused, some looked but claimed to see nothing, and others attributed the observation to an aberration in the lens of the telescope. Galileo was banned from teaching his ideas. He obeyed, but published a fictitious dialogue between individuals. Salviati held the Copernican view that the earth along with the planets revolved around the sun. Simplicius offered the Aristotelian view with the earth located in the center of the universe. The third character, Segredo, was neutral and was swayed by the other two to join their individual viewpoint. The universities were angry and convinced the church to prosecute Galileo for heresy. He was tried and Pope Urban VIII sentenced Galileo to house arrest and solitude for the remainder of his life. Because of leniency he was able to have many visitors and continued his studies until his death in 1642.12
Aristotle considered light to be pure. Newton (1642-1727), interested in optics, offered another theory. He introduced the idea that white light could be separated into its prismatic colors. Newton used his mathematical language and devised new ways to calculate areas of curves (calculus). He developed the Law of Gravitation, and other laws pertaining to the motion of objects. Mathematics was the base used to explain the universe. Newtonian science was accepted. The split between science and theology was made and all that society needed was a political structure to follow.13
Before this time period the world was ruled by monarchies leaving the common person little to say. John Locke (1632-1704), a friend of Newton provided the philosophical structure that society needed to initiate the Industrial Revolution. He deeply believed in a democratic society. “All men would be free, equal and independent and establish a legislative branch to govern society.” Locke offered a paradigm that enabled individuals to extract resources and accumulate wealth. “Nature and its resources should be exploited for use and comfort of man as determined by God.” “The Labour of his Body and the Work of his Hands, we may say, are properly his. Whatsoever, then he removes out of the State that Nature hath provided, and left it in, he hath mixed his Labour with, and joyned to it something that is his own, and thereby makes it his Property. It being by him removed from the common State Nature placed it in, hath by this labour something annexed to it, that excludes the common right of other Men.”14
According to Locke, the accumulation of wealth was natural, but since many resources were hard to trade, the exchange of money would provide the necessary means for this to occur. He believed in the freedom of religion although atheists would not be tolerated and he believed in the separation of state and church. In education, Locke believed that practicality was paramount. Natural sciences were necessary to be able to properly utilize the land and resources that would be wasted if allowed to lie fallow.15
Charles Darwin (1809-1882) focused on nature itself. Darwin had read Malthus’ “An Essay on the Principle of Population” and agreed with Malthus that the key to survival was the ability to obtain food. When species compete against each other the population is checked, preventing the depletion of the food source. According to Darwin, a change in environmental conditions on earth places stress on certain species from time to time. Some species will have traits that were useless in the past, but become beneficial under the new conditions. The species with the beneficial traits would be more adapted to compete for food, produce a greater number of offspring and pass their traits to the next generation. This is known as “Natural Selection”. By this process, over time, species evolve slowly. Species that could not adapt to change would eventually die out. In 1871 Darwin applied this concept to humans in The Descent of Man. Through this theory on evolution, proceeding by gradual adaptations, humanity’s development could be explained. Once again the alarm was heard throughout society denying this possibility. Over time the new theory became accepted by the society.16
Newtonian science provided the means to produce the machinery needed to extract and refine the earth’s resources while Locke’s societal framework provided the workforce needed to produce and operate the machinery. Darwin’s theory explained how capitalism is the natural law of compitition and survival of the fittest. The new paradigm was cemented in place and ready to go. There are many parts to this story that were left out. People such Karl Marx and Adam Smith also played an enormous part in painting the whole picture of our paradigm. Although we entered a period of democracy it seems that society was lead down a road paved by a few individuals.
Rudolf Steiner, an Austrian philosopher, believes we are entering the soul consciousness age. In this age the individual must take up the task of development. The individual will follow an inner law rather than a law imposed from authority. Only when human becomes free will this happen including freedom from the paradigm that is in place. The paradox is, if this becomes a new way of thinking, then this new way of thinking will become the new paradigm.
1 Thomas S. Kuhn, The Structure of Scientific Revolutions, (Chicago: The University of Chicago Press, 1973), p. 63.
2 Thomas S. Kuhn, The Structure of Scientific Revolutions, (Chicago: The University of Chicago Press, 1973), p. 4,5,and 34.
3 Charles E. Hummel, The Galileo Connection, (Downers Groove, Ill.: Inter Varsity Press, 1986), p.24.
4 Colin A. Ronan, Science: Its History and Development among the World’s Cultures, (N.Y.: Facts on File Publications, 1982), p. 104-105.
5 Olaf Pederson and Mogens Pihl, Early Physics and Astronomy: A Historical Introduction, (London: MacDonald and Janes; N.Y.: American Elsevier Inc., 1974), p. 103-108.
6 Colin A. Ronan, Science: Its History and Development Among the World’s Cultures, (N.Y.: Facts on File Publications, 1982), p. 327-333, and 338.
7 John Lori, Aristotelianism, (N.Y.: Cooper Square Publishers, Inc., 1963), p. 50, 51.
8 Colin A. Ronan, Science: Its History and Development Among the World’s Cultures, (N.Y.: Facts on File Publications, 1982), p. 327-333, and 338.
9 Charles E. Hummel, The Galileo Connection, (Downers Groove, Ill.; Inter Varsity Press, 1986), p. 63.
10 Colin A. Ronan, Science: Its History and Development Among the World’s Cultures, (N.Y.: Facts on File Publications, 1982), p. 339.
11 Charles E. Hummel, The Galileo Connection, (Downers Groove, Ill.; Inter Varsity Press, 1986), p. 98.
12 Charles E. Hummel, The Galileo Connection, (Downers Groove, Ill.; Inter Varsity Press, 1986), p. 9-10.
13 James Burke, The day the Universe Changed, (Boston and Toronto: Little, Brown and Company, 1935), p. 158-160.
14 John Locke: Two Treatises of Government, Introduction by Peter Laslett, (N.Y.: Mentor Book, published by the New American Library, 1960), p. 328-329, and 374.
15 Sterling P. Lamprecht (editor), Locke Selections, (N.Y.: Charles Scribner’s Sons, 1956), p. XIX-XLVI.
16 Colin A Ronan, Science: Its history and Development Among the World’s Cultures, (N.Y.: Facts on File Publications, 1982), p. 426.
The second encounter with Waldorf education came soon after my former partner Lisa and I moved to Vermont. Lisa was asked to teach sixth grade main lesson at a small, rural Waldorf school. I watched and gave my opinions from the outside. It made no sense to me and I could give at least a million reasons for my disapproval of this educational system. The school was in need of an assistant in the kindergarten and I was asked to apply. I was the only one to apply and somehow I found my self inside the walls of this crazy school. The children were not learning their colors and numbers in preparation for first grade. They were instead busy playing, listening to stories, and baking bread. My educational foundation was built in the public school system. I had taught Chemistry and I knew what children needed to learn to be able succeed in school. As time went on my foundation started to crumble. I let go of many of my views about how children should be educated and new concepts came to light. Some ideas from the past still made sense and help me fill out the whole picture. This process not only took me years but is still going on and I can’t imagine it ever stopping. I resisted the initial change. First, it was so hard for me to see that there was another possibility, another reality. Secondly, it was much easier to remain in familiar territory. I was so comfortable in my view that it prevented me from seeing anything different.
A psychological experiment done by J. S. Bruner and Leo Postman in the 1940’s demonstrated resistance to change from preconceived beliefs or ideas. Playing cards were flashed to an individual. Most of the cards were normal, but some were altered. There may have been a six of hearts with the heart colored black instead of red. The four of spades may have been red instead of black. When the abnormal card was flashed the individual recognized the card within the framework of their belief system. When shown the black six of hearts the person would recognize it as the six of spades because in their view hearts are red. As the frequency of the abnormal cards was increased many individuals in the experiment recognized that something was amiss, but could not place what it was. They would comment that the border of the card was different, still maintaining the basic belief that spades are black and hearts are red. With further repetition certain individuals suddenly recognized the abnormality after which subsequent irregularities were noticed immediately. In time others saw the abnormalities leaving a few that could not pin point the difference. These individuals became greatly distressed by the experiment. One person exclaimed, “I can’t make the suit out, whatever it is. It didn’t even look like a card that time. I don’t know what color it is now or whether it’s a spade or a heart. I’m not even sure now what a spade looks like. My God!”1
Individuals acquire a belief system that is so strong making it hard to see the possibilities out side of ones viewpoint. This can be thought of as a model or framework of thought in which one’s life is guided. A household will also live under a collective model. The rules in which the household lives molds the perspectives of the individual members. This collective model can be extended to a town or local area, state or province, country and the world. Such a model is referred to as a paradigm. Thomas Kuhn, in 1960, used this term to describe an established scientific belief. A paradigm used in a more diverse sense can represent the entire view or belief system that a society maintains. Paradigm, a framework of thought, can also refer to a part of the entire belief system (paradigm). In other words, many smaller paradigms make up the main societal paradigm. When a paradigm is incorporated into society all of the individuals work within the guidelines of the paradigm. Education supports the paradigm so subsequent generations are born into the paradigm. Society lives the paradigm, eliminating any possible alternative. The model becomes so strong and ingrained that any change is met with great resistance.2
Paradigm shift or change in the belief system is a new way of thinking about old problems. The best example is illustrated in the history leading up to the Industrial Age. What was the process that led to the Industrial Age? Aristotle (384-322 BC), using his senses, was able to develop his scientific ideas by seeing the whole and then developing particulars to explain how the whole worked.3 This way of working became the scientific paradigm. In Aristotle’s world the earth, sun, planets, and stars were all perfect spheres, a property handed down from the Gods. The heavens orbited the earth in a perfect circle. Quantitative science was left out of Aristotle’s work.4 Archimedes (287-212BC) started with the particulars to form a general whole theory. Archimedes applied mathematics and experimentation to specific problems. A hypothesis was proposed, then logical consequences deduced and through experiments the theory was proved. Using this method, a system of levers and pulleys (machinery) was devised that is still used today.5 Aristotle’s already existing paradigm prohibited advancement in this new way of thinking. The model of the heavens could not explain why the planets, at times, would move backwards (retrograde motion). Using Aristotle’s framework, Ptolemy (100-170AD), developed a model to explain the movement of the planets. The model was complicated with the planets making loops while revolving around the earth. Ptolemy’s model could predict the planets positions using Aristotle’s general theory.6 With the planet’s movements explained, Aristotle’s philosophy was further established.3 Archimedes frame of thought would have to wait for centuries.
In the 1200’s science-philosophy and theology were fused together by the teachings of St. Thomas Aquinas (1224-1274). The Bible and the Aristotelian view were joined as one. It became hard to consider one without considering the other. This new relationship between religion and science made societal change difficult.7
It wasn’t until the early 1500’s that Aristotle’s theory of the heavens was challenged. Nicholas Copernicus offered a new model. The sun was at the center of the universe (heliocentric) and the earth along with the planets revolved around the sun. Copernicus held on to Aristotle’s belief in the divine sphere making the orbits around the sun perfect circles. This simple model could explain the motions of the planets and predict their positions with relative accuracy. To predict exact positions minor adjustments were made. Copernicus emphasized that this was the way the planets moved and was not just a convenient model to use to predict planetary positions. This heliocentric theory was only considered by certain mathematicians and was not accepted or taught by the majority.8 Johannes Kepler (1571-1630) challenged the divine sphere. Kepler was deep in controversy, not only in straying from the age-old Aristotelian view, but also in struggling for religious freedom. At one point in his life he had to move from Austria to keep his religious ideas intact. He believed that the Copernican heliocentric theory was basically correct. In describing the Copernican model Kepler stated, “I have attested it as true in my deepest soul, and as I contemplate its beauty with incredible and ravishing delight.”9 Kepler, through observation and mathematics, worked hard to further explain the motions of the planets. He felt that the sun provided the force to keep the planets in motion and this force diminished with distance. In 1600 he met Tyco Brahe (1546-1601), an astronomer who recorded years of observations on the movements of the planets. With this data, Kepler determined that the orbits of the planets were not circular; they were elliptical. His views eventually dissociated him from the Lutheran church. The union between the Aristotelian view and religion was so strong that new ideas brought about reprocussions.10
Galileo Galilei (1564-1642), an acquaintance of Kepler, was the man who would meet the Aristotelian paradigm head on. Although deeply religious, he felt that science and theology were separate and each should be allowed to proceed separately. Throughout his years he attacked the Aristotelian viewpoint. Only through the understanding of mathematical language could the problems of the universe be solved. As written by Galileo in the Assayer, “this grand book…cannot be understood unless one first learns to comprehend the language and read the alphabet in which it is composed. It is written in the language of mathematics, and its characters are triangles, circles and other geometric figures, without which it is humanly impossible to understand a single word of it: without these, one wanders about in a dark labyrinth.” Galileo studied Archimedes’s approach to scientific research. Quantities instead of qualities were emphasized. Observation and experimentation of scientific problems would pave the way for general theories.11
The universities, during this time period, had a monopoly on information. The professors accepted and taught Aristotle’s view, ignoring Copernicus’ theory. Galileo promoted the new ideas and with sarcasm attacked the universities’ paradigm. He assembled a telescope and offered the public the chance to view the heavens. Anyone could see that the Milky Way was made of stars, that moons revolved around Jupiter and that Venus had different phases like that of our moon. When given the chance to view these phenomena, some professors refused, some looked but claimed to see nothing, and others attributed the observation to an aberration in the lens of the telescope. Galileo was banned from teaching his ideas. He obeyed, but published a fictitious dialogue between individuals. Salviati held the Copernican view that the earth along with the planets revolved around the sun. Simplicius offered the Aristotelian view with the earth located in the center of the universe. The third character, Segredo, was neutral and was swayed by the other two to join their individual viewpoint. The universities were angry and convinced the church to prosecute Galileo for heresy. He was tried and Pope Urban VIII sentenced Galileo to house arrest and solitude for the remainder of his life. Because of leniency he was able to have many visitors and continued his studies until his death in 1642.12
Aristotle considered light to be pure. Newton (1642-1727), interested in optics, offered another theory. He introduced the idea that white light could be separated into its prismatic colors. Newton used his mathematical language and devised new ways to calculate areas of curves (calculus). He developed the Law of Gravitation, and other laws pertaining to the motion of objects. Mathematics was the base used to explain the universe. Newtonian science was accepted. The split between science and theology was made and all that society needed was a political structure to follow.13
Before this time period the world was ruled by monarchies leaving the common person little to say. John Locke (1632-1704), a friend of Newton provided the philosophical structure that society needed to initiate the Industrial Revolution. He deeply believed in a democratic society. “All men would be free, equal and independent and establish a legislative branch to govern society.” Locke offered a paradigm that enabled individuals to extract resources and accumulate wealth. “Nature and its resources should be exploited for use and comfort of man as determined by God.” “The Labour of his Body and the Work of his Hands, we may say, are properly his. Whatsoever, then he removes out of the State that Nature hath provided, and left it in, he hath mixed his Labour with, and joyned to it something that is his own, and thereby makes it his Property. It being by him removed from the common State Nature placed it in, hath by this labour something annexed to it, that excludes the common right of other Men.”14
According to Locke, the accumulation of wealth was natural, but since many resources were hard to trade, the exchange of money would provide the necessary means for this to occur. He believed in the freedom of religion although atheists would not be tolerated and he believed in the separation of state and church. In education, Locke believed that practicality was paramount. Natural sciences were necessary to be able to properly utilize the land and resources that would be wasted if allowed to lie fallow.15
Charles Darwin (1809-1882) focused on nature itself. Darwin had read Malthus’ “An Essay on the Principle of Population” and agreed with Malthus that the key to survival was the ability to obtain food. When species compete against each other the population is checked, preventing the depletion of the food source. According to Darwin, a change in environmental conditions on earth places stress on certain species from time to time. Some species will have traits that were useless in the past, but become beneficial under the new conditions. The species with the beneficial traits would be more adapted to compete for food, produce a greater number of offspring and pass their traits to the next generation. This is known as “Natural Selection”. By this process, over time, species evolve slowly. Species that could not adapt to change would eventually die out. In 1871 Darwin applied this concept to humans in The Descent of Man. Through this theory on evolution, proceeding by gradual adaptations, humanity’s development could be explained. Once again the alarm was heard throughout society denying this possibility. Over time the new theory became accepted by the society.16
Newtonian science provided the means to produce the machinery needed to extract and refine the earth’s resources while Locke’s societal framework provided the workforce needed to produce and operate the machinery. Darwin’s theory explained how capitalism is the natural law of compitition and survival of the fittest. The new paradigm was cemented in place and ready to go. There are many parts to this story that were left out. People such Karl Marx and Adam Smith also played an enormous part in painting the whole picture of our paradigm. Although we entered a period of democracy it seems that society was lead down a road paved by a few individuals.
Rudolf Steiner, an Austrian philosopher, believes we are entering the soul consciousness age. In this age the individual must take up the task of development. The individual will follow an inner law rather than a law imposed from authority. Only when human becomes free will this happen including freedom from the paradigm that is in place. The paradox is, if this becomes a new way of thinking, then this new way of thinking will become the new paradigm.
1 Thomas S. Kuhn, The Structure of Scientific Revolutions, (Chicago: The University of Chicago Press, 1973), p. 63.
2 Thomas S. Kuhn, The Structure of Scientific Revolutions, (Chicago: The University of Chicago Press, 1973), p. 4,5,and 34.
3 Charles E. Hummel, The Galileo Connection, (Downers Groove, Ill.: Inter Varsity Press, 1986), p.24.
4 Colin A. Ronan, Science: Its History and Development among the World’s Cultures, (N.Y.: Facts on File Publications, 1982), p. 104-105.
5 Olaf Pederson and Mogens Pihl, Early Physics and Astronomy: A Historical Introduction, (London: MacDonald and Janes; N.Y.: American Elsevier Inc., 1974), p. 103-108.
6 Colin A. Ronan, Science: Its History and Development Among the World’s Cultures, (N.Y.: Facts on File Publications, 1982), p. 327-333, and 338.
7 John Lori, Aristotelianism, (N.Y.: Cooper Square Publishers, Inc., 1963), p. 50, 51.
8 Colin A. Ronan, Science: Its History and Development Among the World’s Cultures, (N.Y.: Facts on File Publications, 1982), p. 327-333, and 338.
9 Charles E. Hummel, The Galileo Connection, (Downers Groove, Ill.; Inter Varsity Press, 1986), p. 63.
10 Colin A. Ronan, Science: Its History and Development Among the World’s Cultures, (N.Y.: Facts on File Publications, 1982), p. 339.
11 Charles E. Hummel, The Galileo Connection, (Downers Groove, Ill.; Inter Varsity Press, 1986), p. 98.
12 Charles E. Hummel, The Galileo Connection, (Downers Groove, Ill.; Inter Varsity Press, 1986), p. 9-10.
13 James Burke, The day the Universe Changed, (Boston and Toronto: Little, Brown and Company, 1935), p. 158-160.
14 John Locke: Two Treatises of Government, Introduction by Peter Laslett, (N.Y.: Mentor Book, published by the New American Library, 1960), p. 328-329, and 374.
15 Sterling P. Lamprecht (editor), Locke Selections, (N.Y.: Charles Scribner’s Sons, 1956), p. XIX-XLVI.
16 Colin A Ronan, Science: Its history and Development Among the World’s Cultures, (N.Y.: Facts on File Publications, 1982), p. 426.
