Thomas Kuhn Structure Of Scientific Revolution

Thomas Kuhn’s essay, The Structure of Scientific Revolution, follows a very logical and chronological composition. Staying true to the title, it sequentially follows the occurrence of a “scientific revolution” from Kuhn’s perspective, ultimately giving revolutions of this sort a recognizable, formulaic pattern. The book is divided into thirteen sections, each detailing a certain aspect of this process. After a brief overview that vaguely introduces his thesis and familiarizes the reader with some of the terms he’ll be using frequently throughout the book – such as normal science, paradigm, and scientific revolution – Kuhn begins with a few sections depicting what precedes a scientific revolution. Section 2, The Route to Normal Science, describes

While Kuhn states that paradigms allow for more systematic and result based research, the kind of work done my most scientists today, he also argues that this type of research “is an attempt to force nature into the pre-formed and relatively inflexible box that the paradigm supplies” (24). He notes that an error with this is that anomalies often get discarded or ignored. However, despite this, Kuhn ends the section mentioning that normal science does have benefits, which he elaborates on in the next section where he compares normal science to solving a puzzle. From Kuhn’s perspective, while normal science is primarily about novelty, is can still bring unexpected results, and this is where scientific revolution

Kuhn argues that despite normal science being rigid, it still allows for a possibility of a paradigm change. While anomalies are often perceived as failures it normal science, if an anomaly is recognized and validated, then the paradigm must change so that the anomaly can become the expected. As anomalies gain recognition, tensions are created, as unexpected results are often perceived as the failure of the scientist and not the failure of the paradigm. However, if the anomaly can’t be explained away by experimental error, then its influence continues to grow until it’s recognized by higher authorities and normal science adjusts to further investigate it. Kuhn then goes on to descirbe the three possible outcomes following this point: either normal science can account for the anomaly and the current paradigm remains, the problem is seen as something that can not be tested with current technology and put to the side, or a new potential paradigm emerges. This third outcome – the emergence of a new paradigm – is what Kuhn views as a scientific revolution. He argues that when a new paradigm emerges, the old one must be rejected, which is revolutionary because the perception of scientist’s worldwide. This midsection of