Objective of this article

This article presents a summary of the essential concepts from Thomas Kuhn's book, The Structure of Scientific Revolutions (Kuhn, T. S. (1973). O. Neurath (ed.); 2nd edition). University of Chicago Press.), along with examples and my personal interpretations. It aims to provide an initial understanding of Kuhn’s ideas and their relevance to your life.

Kuhn opens the discussion by asserting that “these [paradigms] I take to be universally recognized scientific achievements that for a time provide model problems and solutions to a community of practitioners.” (p. viii). He elaborates on how external influences—social, economic, intellectual, and technological—can affect research, leading to anomalies that may trigger a scientific crisis where established beliefs are challenged.

One of the clearest examples of this is the realization that the Earth is round, which rendered many prevailing scientific notions obsolete and necessitated new explanations, resulting in groundbreaking discoveries. I believe the emergence of the internet serves as another significant example (even though Kuhn couldn’t have predicted this, as he wrote before computers became commonplace). The shift in software development demands—from creating stable products for physical media to rapid digital solutions—required a transformation in development methodologies, birthing Agile practices like XP and Scrum. This raises the question of whether software development can indeed be classified as a science.

The scientific community tends to resist change. New researchers are taught the established norms (termed normal science) during their training, as textbooks and lectures are based on long-standing knowledge deemed significant. Only when a significant disruption occurs that challenges these convictions do new paths emerge, leading to a scientific revolution:

> “[Scientific revolutions] are the tradition-shattering complements to the tradition-bound activity of normal science. […] Each one of them 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.” (p. 6)

The cycle of scientific revolutions unfolds in several phases (I highly recommend reading the original work for a more in-depth exploration):

1. Pre-paradigm Phase

   According to Kuhn (p. 11), scientific inquiry can occur even before a paradigm is established. During this phase, multiple phenomena are observed, and various theories that may contradict one another are proposed, often disregarding data that doesn’t support them (p. 12ff). This phase is characterized by a lack of systematic research and repetitive discussion of fundamental principles (p. 18). It is “[…] marked by frequent and deep debates over legitimate methods, problems, and standards of solutions, though these serve rather to define schools than to produce agreement.” (p. 47f).

2. Acceptance of a Paradigm

   > “To be accepted as a paradigm, a theory must seem better than its competitors, but it need not, and in fact never does, explain all the facts with which it can be confronted.” (p. 17f).

   Once a paradigm gains acceptance, the efficiency of scientific research improves as the path forward becomes clearer (p. 18). This results in the formation of journals and societies, delineating specific areas of study (ibidem, p. 19). As a field evolves, foundational knowledge is compiled into published texts for a general audience, while specialized articles address particular phenomena that only those familiar with the paradigm can comprehend (p. 20f). The acceptance of a paradigm marks the beginning of normal science (Chapter 3).

3. Maturity Phase (Normal Science)

   When a scientific domain reaches maturity (noting that research can occur without a paradigm according to p. 11), it can:

   • Acquire a paradigm—will it be mature as well?
   • Enable “more esoteric type of research” (p. 11)
   • Engage in normal science, including within the crisis phase.

4. Crisis Phase

   In the maturity phase (normal science), researchers often operate within the confines of the established paradigm. They may overlook or ignore new evidence and anomalies that challenge their worldview. The identification of these anomalies can cause unease, leading to scientific uncertainty. If these anomalies become part of the research focus (i.e., a problem needing resolution), a crisis may arise. As researchers invest effort into addressing this new issue, various theories emerge, signaling a crisis (p. 71); this is because resources are typically allocated to developing new theories or methods only when the pressure becomes significant (p. 76). The chaos of the crisis phase mirrors the pre-paradigm state, albeit with a more focused research direction. There are three potential outcomes (p. 84):

   • If existing paradigms can address the problem, the paradigm is reinforced.
   • If no resolution is found, the issue is set aside, becoming part of the paradigm’s “backlog.”
   • If a new paradigm surfaces, a paradigm shift occurs.

5. Paradigm Shift Phase (Acceptance of a New Paradigm) = Closing the Cycle

   A paradigm crisis can lead to three outcomes, one of which is a paradigm shift: the old and new paradigms “compete,” and once the new paradigm is embraced (by at least a segment of the community), a “destructive-constructive paradigm change” (p. 66) takes place. It’s essential to note: “[Paradigm shifts] is neither a decline nor a raising of standards, but simply a change demanded by the adoption of a new paradigm.” (p. 108). Once the transition is finalized, the field undergoes changes in acceptable problems and solutions (p. 109), necessitating that scientists reeducate themselves and adapt their perspectives regarding data collection, measurement, interpretation, etc.:

   • The same data may be perceived differently.
   • Identical experiments might yield varied interpretations.
   • Connections may shift.

Additional Insights

I find the social aspect particularly intriguing. Kuhn points out:

1. Issues within a theory are often recognized but ignored until a crisis arises. New theories emerge in response to this crisis, and only then is significant effort invested to innovate. Alternative ideas typically surface only under considerable pressure.
2. Scientific revolutions are rare, as anomalies create discomfort, and people generally resist change. Only a few (often newcomers or those from different fields) acknowledge these shifts (p. 90). Consequently, the acceptance of a new paradigm can be gradual, sometimes spanning generations, but eventually, through collective advocacy and reasoning, alliances shift, and new ideas come to fruition (p. 159).
3. Individuals may follow a new paradigm for three reasons (p. 151–158):
   • In rare cases, they believe it will resolve the crisis (p. 153f).
   • Particularly in fields like mathematics, the new paradigm is perceived as “neater” or “simpler,” thus more aesthetic/appropriate than the previous one (p. 155f). Kuhn notes that early ideas often appear chaotic, but over time they become more organized and aesthetically pleasing (p. 146). Isn't this true for many things?
   • They have faith in the future benefits of the new paradigm, believing it will surpass the existing one (p. 157f).
4. Individuals from different paradigms often struggle to understand one another. They possess distinct worldviews, problem sets, standards, and ways of utilizing similar terminology and tools (p. 148f). “[Thus] communication across the revolutionary divide is inevitably partial.” (p. 149), leading to frequent misunderstandings. Kuhn suggests frequently asking fellow researchers, “What do you mean by that?”

What This Book and Its Ideas Mean to Me

• How I Came to Read It: My PhD supervisor recommended this book. He is incredibly knowledgeable, almost a renaissance figure, and I tend to heed his suggestions, even if it takes me a while to muster the courage and time to tackle such works. Not due to a lack of curiosity, but rather because they can be intimidating. When I retrieved it from the philosophy section of the university library, I was relieved to find it wasn’t overly lengthy, but the writing was dense and devoid of illustrations—very much an old-school approach.
• What It’s About: Kuhn articulates his perspective on paradigms, which is now a widely accepted theory about the evolution of science that, while appearing straightforward on paper, is inherently chaotic for the scientific community involved. He supports his arguments with historical examples from physics (e.g., Copernicus, Newton, Einstein), alongside insights from philosophy (e.g., Aristotle, Socrates) and social science (e.g., group behavior, institutionalized education). Kuhn's focus is predominantly Western, prompting me to consider whether this theory is similarly recognized in Eastern contexts.
• What I Think of It: I would rate it 4 out of 5 stars! This book is not an easy read. Written in the 1960s, its language is “high English,” requiring focus and contemplation. It is not a “fast food book” by today’s standards. Nevertheless, it is a worthwhile endeavor for anyone interested in science and the development of the Western worldview. One doesn’t need to be a scientist to benefit. The book offers numerous enlightening moments. I deducted one star because at times the explanations seemed overly complex (I admit to skipping some paragraphs, especially when delving into physics or chemistry), and it could have benefitted from some visuals (though I assume that was not in vogue during the period it was written).
• What I Learned: Beyond the intricate details regarding the history of physics, I remain captivated by the complicated and extensive process of altering thought patterns. My experiences have taught me that change processes—whether guiding someone to turn left instead of right—are challenging. The extent to which our learning shapes our thinking and the difficulty in relinquishing established patterns can be quite daunting. We must be mindful of what we teach ourselves and others, emphasizing the importance of learning how to learn and how to question rather than simply accumulating more information.
• How It Impacts My Research: Kuhn’s definitions and explanations are ubiquitous, yet they were revolutionary at the time (thus he became part of what he describes). The book prompted an exploration of paradigm shifts, including counterarguments from Popper, raising numerous inquiries for my own research, such as: What are the paradigms of Management Science? Is Management or Software Development a science at all? If so (since otherwise Kuhn's theory cannot be freely applied), is Agile a paradigm for Software Development or Organizational Management? If that is the case, what were the stages of development, and which one are we currently experiencing?
• My “Fond” Memories: I recall starting this book last fall after six months of PhD research practice. It is certainly not a beginner’s text, and I found myself torn between enjoying the challenge and resenting the effort required to read it. I distinctly remember taking a train to visit a friend in Hamburg (back in the good old days when travel was simpler) and feeling proud to have brought such a book along, actually reading it during the journey. I felt quite enlightened!
• Tags in my Zettelkasten: Change Management, Culture, Paradigm, Paradigm Shift, Philosophy, Weltanschauung, Communication, Perception, Innovation.
• (New) Entries in my Zettelkasten: 24.

I also recommend reading Wikipedia on Thomas Kuhn and this book for a quick introduction (but remember to refrain from quoting Wikipedia!).

What about you?! How do these ideas resonate with you? What scientific beliefs have you learned that may no longer be valid? If you’ve read The Structure of Scientific Revolutions, what are your thoughts on it?