The Structure of Scientific Revolutions

Content Warning: This section of the guide discusses history and scientific theories that may be problematic to or not inclusive of certain views and religions.

The Structure of Scientific Revolutions introduces a transformative concept that altered the philosophy of science: the nature of scientific revolutions. Kuhn’s exploration of this theme challenges conventional views of scientific progress, suggesting that it is not a linear and cumulative process but rather a series of paradigm shifts that redefine the fundamental assumptions guiding scientific inquiry.

Kuhn contends that scientific revolutions are not triggered by the gradual accumulation of evidence but rather by a crisis within the existing paradigm; this crisis arises when anomalies and contradictions accumulate, challenging the explanatory power of the reigning theory. Science is widely portrayed as cumulative, Kuhn acknowledges, but he argues that this is far from the truth. Historians of science, he points out, find through their research that “Perhaps science does not develop by the accumulation of individual discoveries and inventions” (2). This is because anyone who attempts to trace the history of scientific progress discovers that scientific progress is marked by periods of uncertainty, contradiction, and competing theories. These periods in history:

necessitated the community’s rejection of one time-honored scientific theory in favor of another incompatible with it. Each produced a consequent shift in the problems available for scientific scrutiny and in the standards by which the profession determined what should count as an admissible problem or as a legitimate problem-solution. And each transformed the scientific imagination in ways that we shall ultimately need to describe as a transformation of the world within which scientific work was done. Such changes, together with the controversies that almost always accompany them, are the defining characteristics of scientific revolutions (6).

Revolutions fundamentally alter their respective scientific communities. They come about via upheaval and usurpation, rather than by cohesive, additive progress. They are combative with periods of cohesive science and drive science towards a different understanding through their new reconciliations of contradictions.

Kuhn’s assertion underscores the inherently human and social aspects of scientific inquiry, acknowledging that scientists are influenced by cognitive and cultural factors that go beyond purely objective considerations. Kuhn notes that science is often seen as a practice of logical and gradual progress, but while revolutions bring about important changes, they are often resisted by the scientists whose work they touch. What Kuhn calls “normal science” does not predispose scientists to novelty and change; rather, he says:

Normal science does and must continually strive to bring theory and fact into closer agreement, and that activity can easily be seen as testing or as a search for confirmation or falsification. Instead, its object is to solve a puzzle for whose very existence the validity of the paradigm must be assumed. Failure to achieve a solution discredits only the scientist and not the theory (80).

A revolution, and therefore a shift in paradigm, calls into question the education and the prior work of scientists who have operated under that paradigm. Paradigms enable the progress of normal science because, when taken for granted, paradigms free up scientists to concentrate on esoteric and highly specific work, as opposed to the fundamentals of their fields. However, when paradigms are questioned and eventually overthrown, these same scientists are forced to shift their understanding of their previous achievements as well as future problems that are worth solving. For these psychological reasons, many scientists are reluctant to accept new paradigms. Kuhn’s assertion brings in a subjective element to the scientific process and highlights the possible interdisciplinary nature of science, which could bring in analyses from the social sciences and humanities. These scientists’ resistance to these ideas is what inherently brings about these changes and revolutions. The anomalies gradually build up against a resistant force.

Kuhn’s exploration of the nature of scientific revolutions challenges traditional views of scientific progress. Through his examination of normal science, paradigm shifts, and the social dynamics of scientific communities, Kuhn provides a nuanced understanding of the dynamic and sometimes tumultuous nature of scientific inquiry. His work continues to shape discussions within the philosophy of science, encouraging scholars to reconsider the linear narratives of scientific progress and appreciate the complex interplay of social, cognitive, and historical factors that define the nature of scientific revolutions. Science, he argues, is not linear and progressive but is inherently the result of combat and multiple, tension-filled opposing forces.