Thomas Kuhn - The Structure of Scientific Revolutions
Chapter 9: The Nature and Necessity of Scientific Revolutions
Why call a change of paradigm a revolution?
o in the case of politics, revolutions are necessitated when the existing institutions have
ceased to adequately meet the problems posed by their environment. Same in science
o once civil society has divided into opposing camps, political recourse fails
(incompatible goals), hence revolutions are extrapolitical, or extrainstitutional, events
o similarly in science. When debating paradigm choice, a paradigms is defended with
the use of the very same paradigm - necessarily circular
o Paradigm conflict cannot be resolved by logical or probabilistic argument, because
there are insufficient common premises/values between paradigms. Thus the
paradigms must be shown to be compelling or persuasive in some other way
o Yet still, despite the historical ‘fact’ that paradigms have been rejected, are there
intrinsic reasons why the adoption of a new paradigm demands the rejection of an old
one? In other words, are there intrinsic reasons why scientific revolutions must
occur?
There are many types of phenomena which might emerge without contradicting or destroying
previous paradigms - life on far off planets, a theory that unifies already existing disparate
theories. These are examples of cumulative scientific development, but it is rare in practice
Yet historically scientific development has demanded the destruction of prior paradigms
In order for new discoveries to emerge, paradigms must be destroyed - they can only emerge
to the extent that previous anticipations about nature and instruments have been wrong.
Hence the theories under which those instruments are appropriate and the theories under
which the anomaly can be codified are logically incompatible
There are only three types of phenomena about which new theories can develop:
o those already well explained by existing paradigms (rare and seldom accepted
because reject existing paradigm)
o those that can be indicated by existing paradigms but require further articulation -
most of science, but not new paradigms
o recognizing anomalies, intractable puzzles that refuse to be assimilated into existing
paradigms
Clearly in the last case, any theory that permits the puzzle to be solved must be incompatible
with the paradigm that came before it, which was unable to predict, assimilate or contain the
anomaly. Thus the two paradigms are logically incompatible
o It is not logically impossible that science could proceed in a cumulative manner,
but insofar as science proceeds through paradigms, it is historically implausible
Objection from early logical positivist school: any theory that has been accepted must be
correct (in some sense). No two (historically) accepted theories can be incompatible. Thus
Einstein’s relativity did not prove Newtonian dynamics incorrect, but rather science
supposedly never demanded that Newton’s laws should be applied to certain scale problems,
or to a certain level of precision. Newtonian theory is a special case of Einstein’s relativity,
and no theory can possibly conflict with one of its special cases
o Some variant of this line of argument is sufficient to make any theory ever used by a
significant group of scientists immune to attack
o But this restriction prohibits the scientist from speaking scientifically about any
phenomenon not already observed, or at least already observed to the degree of
precision predicted by the theory
o Accepted this restriction in practice would deny science the opportunity to develop
further: there would be no normal science. Science would be static around what
could be explained by theories - there would be no anomalies and without anomalies
there cannot be progress.
If, then, the differences between paradigms are necessary and irreconcilable, what are these
differences?
o Different claims about the population of the universe and that population’s behaviour
o Different answers to questions e.g. existence of subatomic particles, materiality of
light and conservation of heat/energy
o Different methods, problem fields and standards of solution
Chapter 9: The Nature and Necessity of Scientific Revolutions
Why call a change of paradigm a revolution?
o in the case of politics, revolutions are necessitated when the existing institutions have
ceased to adequately meet the problems posed by their environment. Same in science
o once civil society has divided into opposing camps, political recourse fails
(incompatible goals), hence revolutions are extrapolitical, or extrainstitutional, events
o similarly in science. When debating paradigm choice, a paradigms is defended with
the use of the very same paradigm - necessarily circular
o Paradigm conflict cannot be resolved by logical or probabilistic argument, because
there are insufficient common premises/values between paradigms. Thus the
paradigms must be shown to be compelling or persuasive in some other way
o Yet still, despite the historical ‘fact’ that paradigms have been rejected, are there
intrinsic reasons why the adoption of a new paradigm demands the rejection of an old
one? In other words, are there intrinsic reasons why scientific revolutions must
occur?
There are many types of phenomena which might emerge without contradicting or destroying
previous paradigms - life on far off planets, a theory that unifies already existing disparate
theories. These are examples of cumulative scientific development, but it is rare in practice
Yet historically scientific development has demanded the destruction of prior paradigms
In order for new discoveries to emerge, paradigms must be destroyed - they can only emerge
to the extent that previous anticipations about nature and instruments have been wrong.
Hence the theories under which those instruments are appropriate and the theories under
which the anomaly can be codified are logically incompatible
There are only three types of phenomena about which new theories can develop:
o those already well explained by existing paradigms (rare and seldom accepted
because reject existing paradigm)
o those that can be indicated by existing paradigms but require further articulation -
most of science, but not new paradigms
o recognizing anomalies, intractable puzzles that refuse to be assimilated into existing
paradigms
Clearly in the last case, any theory that permits the puzzle to be solved must be incompatible
with the paradigm that came before it, which was unable to predict, assimilate or contain the
anomaly. Thus the two paradigms are logically incompatible
o It is not logically impossible that science could proceed in a cumulative manner,
but insofar as science proceeds through paradigms, it is historically implausible
Objection from early logical positivist school: any theory that has been accepted must be
correct (in some sense). No two (historically) accepted theories can be incompatible. Thus
Einstein’s relativity did not prove Newtonian dynamics incorrect, but rather science
supposedly never demanded that Newton’s laws should be applied to certain scale problems,
or to a certain level of precision. Newtonian theory is a special case of Einstein’s relativity,
and no theory can possibly conflict with one of its special cases
o Some variant of this line of argument is sufficient to make any theory ever used by a
significant group of scientists immune to attack
o But this restriction prohibits the scientist from speaking scientifically about any
phenomenon not already observed, or at least already observed to the degree of
precision predicted by the theory
o Accepted this restriction in practice would deny science the opportunity to develop
further: there would be no normal science. Science would be static around what
could be explained by theories - there would be no anomalies and without anomalies
there cannot be progress.
If, then, the differences between paradigms are necessary and irreconcilable, what are these
differences?
o Different claims about the population of the universe and that population’s behaviour
o Different answers to questions e.g. existence of subatomic particles, materiality of
light and conservation of heat/energy
o Different methods, problem fields and standards of solution
