The below is a bit outdated article from Malaysiakini.com. Please see the articles of "Lily's Room" dated 16 & 17 March 2009 before reading it. (Lily)
Malaysiakini.com（http://www.malaysiakini.com）
The knowledge paradigm , 17 March 2009
by KJ John
Once a year, I teach a Masters course at University of Malaya in the Science Faculty and under the aegis of the Science and Technology Policy Department. One of the key and core issues we deal with is what is called the knowledge paradigm.
Paradigm is a very big word, made popular in Western science and epistemology by Thomas Kuhn in his now famous, 'Structure of Scientific Revolutions'. In it he defined what paradigms are and what they are not. Since then, over time, the word paradigm has become now very popular, to almost the point of being bastardized.
A paradigm is a framework of thinking but not necessarily for acting. It may lend towards one’s actions but it is mainly a framework of espoused ideas and ideals. In my doctoral research, I had to review and introduce another concept of worldviews (it is originally a compound of two words: world and views). Throughout my doctoral thesis work, I combined this compound word, much to the dislike of Word Perfect and Word Star’s spell check functions. They did not like me using it as a compound and combined word. But I did, and today my Microsoft Word does not object anymore! They must be learning!
The difference between worldviews and paradigms is that worldviews deal with both ideas and ideals. It is both a descriptor of all one’s ideas within a framework of thought but it is also a framework for one’s life views. It can therefore almost predict one’s actions. Paradigms, in my definition, are limited to the world of ideas, but worldviews move us into the framework of both positive and normative views of and for life.
While we were working at the NITC Secretariat, we used to define what is called in the subject matter field of computer, information, and communication technologies as the hierarchy of thought. The lowest form of such information is called data. Consequently, information is value-added data, and then knowledge, which what includes the information but also its application and use of that information to solve problems in life, and finally what is often called wisdom or in Greek, Sophia.
Wisdom was there in all forms of traditional and perennial knowledge over the centuries of human existence. Wise people can therefore give advice or counsel without getting into the technical aspects of the issues and concerns.
All of the above is only background and setting the context for my issues of dialogue and discourse in today’s column called the paradigm of knowledge. What is this so-called paradigm? Where does such knowledge emerge from? Who is the author of all such knowledge? What does it mean when someone says, “I know what the real problem is in this case?” How do we then fit the ‘wisdom of an Elder’ that does not even have basic or simple “so-called” qualifications in the current world terms?
The 'Allah' discourse
For those of us who have followed the discourse on the word, ‘Allah’ in religious and rational circles may be interested therefore to follow my discussion and reflection on this subject. Allow me to deal with this issue, premised upon the minds (maybe, not their hearts) of two outstanding scholars in Malaysia; one a vice chancellor of a public university and the other a resident research scholar of a Christian think tank. Both versions appeared in the Sun and the editors must be congratulated for encouraging such a two-way, and an almost inter-faith dialogue, from thesis to antithesis and maybe, finally a synthesis. The first appeared in the Sun of March 11 and the second appears in today’s Sun (March 17). Mine is a delayed response to both their views.
The paradigm of knowledge would argue that the use of the word, ‘Allah’ in the Bahasa Malaysia bible of the Ibans and Kadazans (not just in the Catholic Herald’s Bahasa edition) must be read, seen, understood and appreciated in the context of the world of ideas and also the world of ideals; or, both the positive and normative worlds of all such people groups or ethnes.
It appears to me that the VC of USM took only a limited rational but nevertheless Malay cultural worldview in making his argument and initiating his dialogue over the matter. Like the Kairos research scholar, I too welcome this beginning of such a rational and coherently argued article. But, as the Karios scholar says, it must follow some basic dictums of critical analysis, always. Some have argued that no other book in the world has ever been through critical scholarship and review as much as the bible. Therefore, my concern is that if the VC does not really believe in Jesus and the New Testament in his use of them, why even seek to interpret this book, as if it were only a story book? If any one of us does the same to the Quran, I am sure the concurrent treatment will not be less than an emotive call for the authorities to use the Sedition Laws or something drastic like that.
Since I have a greater interest in sincere and constructive dialogue and discourse between Muslims and Christians over this matter in a rational and coherent way, may I suggest some ground rules in any such dialogue, based on what I think of as from ‘a paradigm of knowledge perspective?’
Here, allow me to publicly acknowledge that Prof Seyyed Hossein Nasr, the Islamic philosopher and scientist was and still is my teacher in some areas related to this field of knowledge or epistemology. Therefore, premised on the hierarchy of knowledge, one would argue that any such dialogue must follow the following dictums:
1) Listen more than talk, after you have made your case; learn to listen with both head and heart.
2) Accept the premises of the other person, otherwise no dialogue is possible.
3) Use rational and commonly acceptable rules of such a dialogue; and agree to disagree, agreeably when necessary.
4) Winning the argument is never the issue but learning to listen and hear the other point is critical.
5) Finally, if all wisdom is ultimately from the creator, let Him be the final judge and arbiter when we have reached human and societal limits.
My prayer is that the excellent dialogue already started can be continued for those who want to talk at the level of knowledge and seek wisdom of the creator in understanding in all matters, but let us never take things in our hand and seek to impose our truth upon others.
（End）
