This paper examines two dominant epistemological paradigms — post-positivism and postmodernism — and their respective strengths and challenges, particularly within health sciences contexts. It begins by distinguishing postmodernism's rejection of universal truths and objective reality from post-positivism's commitment to rationality, causal reasoning, and multiple measurement frameworks. The paper then considers how postmodern thinking informs culturally sensitive health philosophies, while post-positivism supports scientific practitioners who nonetheless recognize that no single paradigm fully explains human illness. The discussion concludes by illustrating how clinicians, including nurses and psychiatrists, draw on multiple theoretical frameworks to treat patients holistically.
The paper uses comparative analysis as its central technique: it defines each paradigm on its own terms before identifying points of overlap, divergence, and practical utility. This structure allows the writer to move from conceptual distinction to applied synthesis — a useful model for philosophy-of-science essays in professional disciplines.
The paper opens with definitional challenges surrounding postmodernism, then pivots to its relevance in health philosophy. It next introduces post-positivism as a more science-friendly alternative before showing how both paradigms converge in clinical practice through multi-framework treatment approaches. The references section cites two sources in a loose APA format.
Two of the dominant paradigms within modern epistemological discourse are post-positivism and postmodernism. They are often used relatively loosely, and postmodernism in particular is deployed in a very flexible manner — to denote a form of art based upon pastiche and humor with a kind of ironic, self-referential quality. The difficulty of defining postmodernism stems from the fact that the philosophy denies the idea of modern "progress" or the ability to arrive at a secure definition of reality. Instead, "postmodernists deny both the possibility and the desirability of an integral postmodernist philosophy," and postmodern philosophers often seem to share little other than a sense of opposition to modernism (Nekrasas, 2011). The idea that there are no truths — only subjective beliefs — might seem antithetical to the sciences, including the health sciences, and there are some postmodernists who deny the validity of the scientific method as a Western construct.
However, postmodern ideals are reflected in many philosophies of health that question whether notions of "wellness" are universal. Ideas of what constitutes health can often vary based upon an individual's cultural context. The purpose of health treatments, how to value a human life, and what constitutes a worthy life are all grounded in cultural beliefs rather than in ideas that can be scientifically proven. These concepts must therefore inform the treatment process. Additionally, many health practitioners are incorporating methods of dealing with illness from disciplines that do not strictly adhere to the assumptions of Western care, including acupuncture, yoga, and other forms of traditional medicine.
Post-positivism, however, is often seen as more useful for scientific practitioners given its emphasis on rationality. Post-positivism stresses "realism, the correlation of assessing causative factors to that of consequences, and the implementation of an objective role of research," unlike postmodernism, which views objective reality as an intellectual construction (Hutton, 2009). However, unlike positivism or modernism, "post-positivism does allow for the importance of multiplicity, and using different measurements to observe and treat the subject" (Hutton, 2009). For example, a clinician endeavoring to treat a patient with an anxiety disorder might observe the patient's heart rate, sweating, and physical symptoms from a medical lens, while also using psychological paradigms to assess the patient's mental health. According to post-positivism, there is no single paradigm that is universally informative. All paradigms must have some rational basis, but it is rare that the human mind can find a perfect, singular solution and treatment for any observable or non-observable phenomenon. All human illnesses and states of wellness have social, psychological, and physiological components to varying degrees.
You’re 72% through this paper. Sign up to read the remaining 1 section.
Sign Up Now — Instant Access Already a member? Log inAlways verify citation format against your institution’s current style guide requirements.