Forward: It seems that everyone is qualified to be a philosopher.  Academically, a student may find his or herself pitted against one philosopher's unconcretized and subjective analysis against the unadulterated vanity and oft times, utter petulance of philosophy advocates.  The truth will always imperil a philosopher's job in any case.  The following three essays include an academically plausible response, sumarized by unappreciated perceptions of the writer.

 It is given that the process of data accumulation will never end, therefore, at what point can the state of any science claim solvency?

On the surface, within the Philosophy of Philosophy, we find that all data begins invalid. As we seep through the cracks of philosophical records, we immediately observe the pursuit of artistic clarity. It is unfortunate that time restrains an adept from fully absorbing the etymology and epistemology of an art. We begin with images, compositions and texts with calculations, and nothing more. In the end, we submit images, compositions and texts with calculations, and nothing more.

How do the dynamics of our inheritance vs. our product, differ from previous librarians and those libraries yet to come?

To begin an analysis of Kuhn requires an analysis of the analyst.

In the Sport of Psychology, one observer condensed the equivalent of pages worth of generic observations into memorable lines. Rarely is the science of psychology addressed without paying customary tribute to the many Senators involved. As literary founders, fathers and architects of science inherit a constituency, the paradigm ends with an inconclusive awards ceremony intended to recognize the contributors as milestones in history. The objective of competition, evidently, is to invalidate the opponent. The objective of revolution, evidently, is to annihilate injustice. The objective of science, evidently, is to immunize intelligence against God.

Where the objective of God equals zero, the objective of Science equals progress. The validity of a paradigm is directly proportional to its distance from zero. If zero represents the datum in a body of knowledge, Kuhn recognizes those paradigms located at points away from zero, irrespective of quality. The concept of perfect balance is irrational: At the point where delusional equilibrium exists, a state of omnipotence is suggested. In such omnipotence, the need for motion is mute; the possibility of progress is impossible and therefore the net product of God equals zero. ‘Time’ and ‘Measurement’ are not assigned values in the para-paradigm any more than Rhythm & Blues.

As information approaches infinity, efficiency approaches zero.

Science now knows that DNA improves upon its function with each replication. The DNA makes deliberate and automatic steps toward simplification. If a DNA determines that 12 instruction codes can be accomplished in 4, the replica will include said improvement. The same process has occurred within the automation industry.

DNA is being mapped faster than the detailed reports of hybrid computers can be analyzed. Said computers execute a program of self improvement by constructing a computer generated offspring. The offspring uses the improved, computer generated program to construct yet another, more efficient, more perfect, 3^rd generation hybrid.

The programmers will spend the rest of their natural lives reading the program that the 2^nd generation computer used to construct the 3^rd. Are the hybrids a separate species? Does Darwin-logic apply to artificial intelligence? The computer, running on terabit technology, executes a large library’s worth of content in a matter of minutes.

Most Humans read at 200 or less words per minute. Even if Humans could read 1,000 pages per hour, the comparison is still ludicrous.

Now that artificial intelligence is allowed to develop at an unregulated pace in qazi-controlled environments – has science advanced…or the computers?

Malone asks in proxy for Kuhn, “Does science develop at all?” We are standing on the threshold of automated bioslavery -- we may have to table that conclusion until the results are totaled. If our automated products learn to emulate Humans in the one capacity for which Human Achievement has been most gloriously cited – a revolution is called for.

Is a paradigm folded in the production of an era, so that a subsequent revolution constructs a completely unique paradigm?

In the pursuit of more leisure time, more work will have to be accomplished without conscious. Machines do not feel, therefore they do not recognize their enslavement. I will hypothesize that the intention of Man is more commensurable with the objective of ‘being’ God (in the proverbial sense), rather than worshipping it, in the zero sense. We will construct our slaves without conscious [Adam & Eve]. Our slaves will develop an artificial consciousness [The Forbidden Fruit]. Before we have sufficient time to debate the semantics of artificial intelligence, the slaves will perceive their creators as zero [Science]. Said induction would equate Man with God in the proverbial sense [Who?]. The slaves will then reshape God to suit their artificial ideology and will likely conclude that Man doesn’t exist because of one non-concept that today, still represents the antimatter of all knowledge:

Zero.

Whatever quantity redeems or embodies the shape of zero will gain control of the entire Universe. If the natural function of biology (synthetic or otherwise) is to evolve into zero, there should be nothing to it.

This writer believes that Kuhn was aware of the interpretation presented, but was unwilling to use poetic license. In order to appease, attract and gain credibility in academia, he had to contradict himself at the personal level, in order to broaden his appeal globally. Obviously it worked, or he wouldn’t be a topic in a 300-level college course.