Structure Of Scientific Revolution By Thomas Kuhn

Thomas Kuhn, beginning as a physicist, but later switched to the history of science, has theories and beliefs that have strongly impacted the worlds of philosophy and science. Normal science and revolutionary science, both concepts by Kuhn, from his book “Structure of Scientific Revolutions,” vary from one another because of the way paradigms are being perceived. Normal science requires an agreement about paradigms while revolutionary science allows for division.

Normal science is the concept of scientists attempting to prove and support a paradigm when introduced and argued, by exploring that field of study. In normal science, it is important that scientists agree on the paradigm because it serves as a foundation to what’s being proved.

In result, new paradigms are presented to accommodate the present anomalies and prevent future ones. This opens up the door to disagreements and conflicts among paradigms since what was true no longer true. Kuhn stated, “...that paradigm change cannot be justified by proof, is not to say that no arguments are relevant or that scientists cannot be persuaded to change their minds. (pg.15)” Kuhn explains that during a crisis, opinions and different views are accepted to refine the paradigm. Revolutionary science happens because scientists are able to discuss and have conflicting beliefs about the paradigm at topic. Paradigms, that have inconsistencies, motivates scientists and theorists to continue to analyze, improve, and even modify until an agreement is came to which will lead to an paradigm shift, shifting from view to another. When this is happening during the scientific process, paradigms are still being discussed and new ones are being discussed, divisions among the field occurs as well. Despite Kuhn’s approval of debates and differences when revolutionary science happens, not all scientists agree with each others’ differences which leads to divisions in that field or regarding a specific paradigm. Paradigms can cause separation because of peoples’ differeitanting beliefs

This further explains why it is important that scientists have a similar understanding or a mutual agreement on a paradigm, because everyone can have the same picture in mind when making the puzzle which improves efficiency. Unlike normal science, revolutionary science doesn’t call for an agreement instead it welcomes new beliefs and opinions. Following the puzzle analogy, revolutionary science is similar to creating a puzzle, only to realize that it’s been done wrong, so now everyone working on it has to come up with new ways to complete the puzzle. With the new methods come arguments about what right and wrong, which leads to sectors in a field, as previously