Paradigm Shifts and Scientific Revolutions

The process of scientific discovery has been in development since the classical age of the ancient Greeks. Despite the amount of time that the process of scientific discovery has been in existence, ideas are still being developed that impact this process, and one example of such an idea can be seen in the work of Thomas Kuhn. The Structure of Scientific Revolutions, which introduced the world to Thomas Kuhn's paradigm shift theory, has had a profound impact on both the philosophy of science, and the way the world views the process of scientific discovery. The impact of this theory has been so broad that it can be demonstrated, not only in the study of science, but in other disciplines as well.

In the 1950's Thomas Kuhn was nearing the completion of a graduate degree in theoretical physics from Harvard University. As a student, Kuhn was focused on pure science, but an involvement with a History of Science course for non-science majors exposed Kuhn to the history and philosophy of science, and changed the way he viewed scientific discovery forever (Kuhn, 1962). As Kuhn states, "that exposure to out of date scientific theory and practice radically undermined some of my basic conceptions about the nature of science and the reasons for its special success" (Kuhn, 1962).

Kuhn was further influenced by a year spent in the Center for Advanced studies in the Behavioral Sciences, during which he was exposed to the many differing schools of thought that make up the Behavioral Sciences. This time greatly contributed to the formation of Kuhn's idea of paradigms (Kuhn, 1962). Paradigms are a central element to The Structure of Scientific Revolutions, and in Kuhn's own words are described as, "universally recognized scientific achievements that for a time provide model problems and solutions to a community of practitioners" (Kuhn, 1962). These factors contributed to a shift in Kuhn's own studies, as he went from a focus on theoretical physics to the history of science and philosophy. Through examining historical precedents in scientific discovery, Kuhn developed his paradigm shift theory, which was initially published in essay form in 1959, and then expanded for publication as a book, entitled The Structure of Scientific Revolutions, in 1962 (Kuhn, 1962).

The aforementioned explanation of paradigms is a keystone to Kuhn's theory. The scientific work that is done under an existing paradigm is referred to by Kuhn as normal science, which is work predicated upon the rules and beliefs of the existing paradigm (Kuhn, 1962). As Kuhn describes it, "normal science means research firmly based upon one or more past scientific achievements, achievements that some particularly scientific community acknowledges for a time as supplying the foundation for its further practice" (Kuhn, 1962).

Scientific work done within the framework of normal science is labeled by Kuhn as puzzle solving activity. This work is so named because it sets out to solve problems strictly related to the existing paradigm, for the purpose of further articulating, strengthening, or bolstering the rules and beliefs of the existing paradigm (Kuhn, 1962). As Kuhn points out, "these are the only problems that the community will admit as scientific or encourage its members to undertake. Other problems, including many that had previously been standard, are rejected as metaphysical, as the concern of another discipline, or sometimes as just too problematic to be worth the time" (Kuhn, 1962).

This focus on normal science and puzzle solving activity can produce an effect similar to tunnel vision, in that the scientific community operating under a paradigm becomes somewhat closed minded, or resistant to scientific work that produces results that conflict with, or fall outside of the paradigm they support (Kuhn, 1962). Kuhn describes normal science as "an attempt to force nature into the preformed and relatively inflexible box that the paradigm supplies" (Kuhn, 1962). Despite the narrow focus that normal science requires, the work that is involved with normal science often produces results that fall outside of the existing paradigm, known as anomalies (Kuhn, 1962).

The phenomenon of anomaly can be seen as the catalyst for a paradigm shift. When an anomaly is remarkable enough to be recognized by the scientific community and raise questions about the integrity of the existing paradigm, a period of crisis can ensue. This period of crisis is crucial to laying the groundwork upon which a new paradigm may be founded (Kuhn 1962). The crisis period within a scientific community often results in doubts about the existing paradigm, and as Kuhn describes, "loosens the rules of normal puzzle solving in ways that ultimately permit a new paradigm to emerge (Kuhn, 1962). In other words, crisis can transform what was once considered an anomaly to a part of a new paradigm.

When the recognition of anomaly leads to a period of crisis and resistance in a particular scientific community, a paradigm shift may occur. The paradigm shift is simply the process of moving from an existing paradigm to a new one, and this process is comprised of all the aforementioned elements. The existing paradigm, normal science and puzzle solving activities, as well as anomaly and crisis make up the components of the paradigm shift. This process is also what Kuhn terms as a scientific revolution (Kuhn, 1962).

When examining the impact of Kuhn's theory, the first obvious place to look is within the scientific community. By categorizing historical scientific discoveries as paradigm shifts, Kuhn has changed the way that these discoveries, as well as the scientific process in general, is viewed. Among the most prominent examples of these given in The Structure of Scientific Revolutions would be the paradigm shift that occurred between Ptolemaic astrology and the Copernican revolution. The astronomical proposal of Copernicus added to the state of crisis that was already brewing among the scientific community of Ptolemaic astrology, and the anomaly that was the ideas of Copernicus led to the formation of a new paradigm (Kuhn, 1962). Other historical examples of scientific discoveries that are now considered paradigm shifts is the emergence of Einsteinian mechanics from the Newtonian paradigm, and Maxwell's electromagnetic theory, which also emerged from the work of Newton (Kuhn, 1962).

If Kuhn's theory has affected the way that scientists view historical discoveries, then it has certainly influenced the way that the present day scientific community views the discovery process. More than just an explanation, or articulation of the scientific process, Kuhn's theory has illuminated, and in some ways changed the process of scientific discovery (Scheffler, 1972). Israel Scheffler of Harvard University makes this point in a paper entitled, "Vision and Revolution: A Postscript on Kuhn." "Paradigm changes do cause scientists to see the world of their research engagement differently, that after a revolution scientists are responding to a different world" (Scheffler, 1972).

The impact of The Structure of Scientific Revolutions can be demonstrated outside of traditional science, as well. The fields of social sciences have been especially influenced by Kuhn (McDonagh, 1976). Eileen McDonagh acknowledges this in a paper entitled "Attitude Changes and Paradigm Shifts: Social Psychological Foundations of the Kuhnian Thesis." "The term paradigm has been popularly accepted by many social scientists and some have attempted to apply the paradigm thesis directly to political science" (McDonagh, 1976).

Disciplines such as sociology and psychology that often have multiple, differing schools of thought seem to be natural fits for the concept of paradigms. While it may be difficult to classify discoveries in these fields as true paradigm shifts, the fact that there are often several differing paradigms operating simultaneously within these fields has made Kuhn's work very adaptable by these communities.

Beyond the social sciences, the Kuhnian paradigm shift theory has made its way into the educational field, as well (McNamara, 1979). This is documented in a paper by D.R. McNamara entitled, "Paradigm Lost: Thomas Kuhn and Educational Research." "It is surprising how rapidly the notion of paradigm, originally developed by Kuhn in a quite different context has become part of the technical vocabulary of educational researches, especially curriculum evaluators. It is now a well worn phrase used in professional conversation, conference discussions, and published accounts" (McNamara, 1979). Similar to the social sciences, it is difficult to adequately translate the theory of paradigm shift to the educational realm. The idea of paradigms, however, as a structure of rules and ideas that is held by a community is very adaptable for education (McNamara, 1979).

The influence of Kuhn is apparent beyond the academic fields, as well. Paradigm shift theory has been eagerly adapted by the business world, and is implemented in a wide variety of business situations today (Ansoff, 1987). In an article entitled, "The Emerging Paradigm of Strategic Behavior," by Igor Ansoff the author explains the attractiveness of paradigm shift theory to business leaders. "One of the exciting aspects of the concept of paradigm is that it puts the apparently contradicting theories into a common perspective, and frequently converts contradictions into complementarities" (Ansoff, 1987).

While Kuhn's work has been adapted by other disciplines and even the business world, it is important to note that this was never his intent, and that his original theory was meant to be applied only in scientific realms. The argument could also be presented that a legitimate paradigm shift is only possible within a scientific environment. Nonetheless, the adaptability of his work across a spectrum of differing fields is remarkable, and most certainly a tribute to the merit of Kuhn's theory.

Clearly, discoveries such as this, that change the way the world views the scientific process, are far from everyday occurrences. There have been many detractors and opponents over the years, yet the staying power of Kuhn's work is a testimony to its worthiness. The Structure of Scientific Revolutions has continually been in print for forty-five years, since its first publication in 1962. The argument could be made that through The Structure of Scientific Revolutions, Kuhn began a wide reaching, far-flung revolution of his own.

WORKS CITED
Ansoff, Igor. "The Emerging Paradigm of Strategic Behavior." Strategic Management Journal, Vol. 8, No. 6. (Nov. - Dec., 1987), pp. 501-515.

Kuhn, Thomas. The Structure of Scientific Revolutions. The University of Chicago Press. 1962: Chicago.

McDonagh, Eileen L. "Attitude Changes and Paradigm Shifts: Social Psychological Foundations of the Kuhnian Thesis." Social Studies of Science. Vol. 6, No. 1 (Feb., 1976), pp. 51-76 .

McNamara, D. R. "Paradigm Lost: Thomas Kuhn and Educational Research."
British Educational Research Journal > Vol. 5, No. 2 (1979), pp. 167-173.

Scheffler, Israel. "Vision and Revolution: A Postscript on Kuhn."
Philosophy of Science. Vol. 39, No. 3 (Sep., 1972), pp. 366-374.