Book+Review+and+Summary

“The Structure of Scientific Revolutions” by Thomas Kuhn is not quite a book of fact but an explanation of how fact came to be; what sets a theory into motion and where it goes from there. If the theory is demolished or does it go as far as becoming a paradigm. And together with the normal science created from the paradigm, comes a scientific revolution. These scientific revolutions are the product of either new paradigms or a shift in paradigms.

This book is regarded as an essay, which popularizes and revolves around a term that Kuhn makes vital to scientific revolutions: the paradigm. These result from the “great works” of science. Some of the well known paradigms include Newton’s Principia, Aristotle’s Physica, and Lavoisier’s Chemistry. These paradigms follow two main requirements: “Their achievement was sufficiently unprecedented to attract an enduring group of adherents away from competing modes of scientific activity. Simultaneously, it was sufficiently open-ended to leave all sorts of problems for the redefined group of practitioners to resolve” (10). These works truly affect science. Paradigms attract researchers/scientists to a new field that is structured enough so that it can be an accepted view and yet leaves others to further explore. This new exploration is what Kuhn refers to as: normal science. Kuhn defines this as “research firmly based upon one or more past scientific achievements that some particular scientific community acknowledges for a time as supplying the foundation for its further practice” (10). This “past scientific achievement” is the paradigm. Over the course of the book, these two concepts become frequently used because of their significance to scientific revolutions. Particularly, the transition from one paradigm to another marks the beginning and end of scientific revolutions. In turn these revolutions allow science to develop, change, and advance.

The invention of new theories occurs under certain circumstances. If phenomena are already well explained by paradigms, they then offer little motivation to the construction of theories. When phenomena use existing paradigms, their details can only be understood through the articulation of a theory. Scientists deal mostly with this type. However, it usually results in further articulation of the paradigm instead of a new theory. Finally, the recognition of anomalies that don’t lie under existing paradigms will always result in new theories. The book then explains next the emergence of paradigms from these theories. Scientists will often develop rough and “unarticulated” theories that can lead to discovery during pre-paradigm and crisis times. This discovery is not normally anticipated. Plus, it is hard to find something when you are not exactly sure of what you’re searching for. The crucial point at which a paradigm comes into play occurs “only as experiment and tentative theory are together articulated to a match does the discovery emerge and the theory become a paradigm” (61). So if nature complements the paradigm, then the experiments will fall into place of the theory. Kuhn speaks of the paradigm as “a vehicle for scientific theory” (109). It tells the scientist how nature does and does not behave but not in the way in which it behaves. The paradigm provides a “map” for which science can follow as it matures and it will always mature because of nature’s complexity.

Kuhn talks about how it is highly unlikely to form a paradigm with little “guidance and pre-established theory” (16). Science revolves around and needs “pre-established theory” because it is always harder to start from scratch than from where someone left off. In the early days of science, when the same phenomena were approached by different people, they would be described in so many different ways. However, after the paradigm it allows the scientist to continue on and advance science from where science left off because preserves the progress made by every generation. This allows the researcher/scientist to focus on the finer and more obscure aspects of their field. Typically when a new paradigm emerges, it won’t require the scientist to pursue such intricate details until further on. As time passes, the paradigm will call for more unique equipment and special vocabulary/skills.

The period after the paradigm always proceeds with normal science. Kuhn states that normal science is similar to “puzzle-solving.” What drives a scientist to find answers is not what the answer provides, but what challenge it gives. Normal science involves “complex instrumental, conceptual, and mathematical puzzles” and “the one who succeeds proves himself an expert puzzle-solver” (36). The process requires both the collection of facts and empirical work. In return normal science strengthens the definition of its paradigm and also provides it with “articulation.” Eventually an alteration to the paradigm is needed. During normal science, scientists can encounter anomalies with their work. These anomalies will not follow its designated paradigm and will therefore not fit into nature. What occurs here is what Kuhn refers to as a crisis. This crisis “loosens the rules of normal puzzle-solving in ways that ultimately permit a new paradigm to emerge” (80). What occurs next is what is called a paradigm shift. The transition of a paradigm can be a complete reconstruction of the most fundamental theories and generalizations. I particularly like the quote that Herbert Butterfield describes this as “‘picking up the other end of the stick’ a process that involves ‘handling the same bundle of data as before, but placing them in a new system of relations with one another by giving them a different framework’” (85). Although many new problems can be solved with the “new system” as well as old ones, they should never all be the same ones otherwise the paradigm has not changed.

Kuhn explains that where a paradigm replaces the last begins with the individual or group that first recognizes the discovery or theory. It becomes apparent that the field must change due to the crisis. While a researcher solves the puzzles of normal science he does not test paradigms. The paradigm is only tested when consistent failure to solve the puzzles and a crisis arises. Thereafter the test of the next paradigm is a test of what paradigm is more favored among the scientific community. Verification of the paradigm occurs in different ways. There can be a comparison between the same collection of observed data or all the data that it could be conceivably asked to address. However, no matter what the theory, there will always be some problems it cannot address otherwise all theories would have to be rejected. It is hard to ask how well a theory fits the facts because in a way they all do, but when compared with another, it is easier to tell which fits better. Still, this does not make the process of determining a paradigm significantly easier.

From reading Kuhn’s book, I like to think of the paradigm as a school of thought. After its emergence, the paradigm will attract the next generation’s scientists and researchers to the field. Older groups or schools will disappear as a result. This is due to members of the older school converting to follow the “more rigid definition” of their field. Typically, paradigm shift does not occur as a slow transition but a quick conversion. Those that will not accept this paradigm are forced to leave this group in search of another group or isolation. Max Planck wrote in his Scientific Autobiography, “a new scientific truth does not triumph by convincing its opponents and making them see the light, but rather because its opponents eventually die, and a new generation grows up that is familiar with it” (151). It is true that it is harder to convince someone to change their mind than to convince them from the start. I believe that Planck’s statement is not only true for paradigms but also for the ideas and styles of every generation. At the start of every paradigm there will be few supporters but in time will provide motives to join such a group. The paradigm will grow in favor if it is truly a paradigm (providing prevailing persuasive arguments). More and more scientists will be converted and the growth of new scientific literature, experiments, and instruments will constantly increase pertaining to the paradigm. Eventually, only a few will remain left unconvinced by the paradigm.

The most important result of the conversion is the shift in vision. Post-revolutionary science measurements and ideas are different but the world in which the scientist views, is still the same. The way in which the scientist now approaches this world, is different. We are always in search of a better explanation to our world and that is what science tries to obtain.

My view on “The Structures of Scientific Revolutions” was generally a positive one. It did not particularly stimulate my interest until I was well into the book. His writing style was not of one that I particularly enjoyed. Sometimes it was hard to grasp the concepts he was explaining because he beats around the bush every now and then. On the other hand, I think that he does this because of the knowledge he is trying to convey requires those particular phrasings. Occasionally the book will require you to have some background knowledge on the scientists Kuhn speaks of (for the most part he will go into detail, specifically with the more famous ones). On the hand, The essay is well referenced and the use of examples strengthens his explanation. Kuhn talks about a lot of concepts and I tried to cover most of the key points of his essay. His essay contains a great deal of thought and detail, to which I admire. I think that the book poses an explanation that most would not think of in such detail. I did enjoy the insight on the topic and the ideas that came across my head whilst reading. I would recommend this book to anyone curious about how science evolves or who would like a further analysis to the progression of science.