I was fascinated by 'The Structure of Scientific Revolutions'. Written by Thomas Kuhn in 1962, such was its success that Kuhn wrote a postscript seven years later addressing the debates that the book ensued. For me, it was the first philosophy of science book that I read. I read it because my professor explicitly recommended it because I was skeptical about some modern debates in cognitive science; namely the dispute between probabilistic and heuristic models of mental processes. The book proved to be eye-opening, relevant, and extremely useful. Throughout, Kuhn proposes that scientific development is not cumulative nor linear. Rather, it is defined by paradigm shifts organized in a cycle characterized by stages of "normal science" and "revolutions". As a mode of summary, I will point out the most important dichotomies exhibited: - Paradigms as exemplars vs Paradigms as worldviews - Normal science vs Science during revolutions - Pre-paradigm vs Post-paradigm scientific endeavours - Isolated science vs Science connected to the world ### Paradigms as exemplars vs Paradigms as worldviews > "Interpretation begins where perception ends." Generally, a paradigm is considered to be an exemplar, "something that serves as a pattern or model". For instance, 'One Hundred Years of Solitude' is a paradigm of magical realism novels. Kuhn proposes a new definition for this word, which is more associated to "a way to see the world" than "a pattern".  Kuhn indicates that, for example, physics students implicitly learn to see the world as phenomena of mass and energy which can be measured with tools orchestrated by the scientific method to produce scientific results. Scientific paradigms are therefore a set of methods, tools, theories, and labels that scientists use to study the world. Interestingly, he points out that many of these details within the paradigm are not explicitly learned. Rather, through practice (and what we would currently call 'professional deformation') physicists learn to _see_ the world around them _as_energy, mass, and so on. For example, lets imagine a car collision. There, a physicist would probably _see_ momentum being transferred, while a transport engineer might see a poorly designed street, while a psychologist might see the effects of mindlessness in daily life. Same situation, but different views, all dependent on the respective paradigm. ### Normal science vs Science during revolutions > Values are collectively shared, but applied by individuals. The type of science we generally think about and encounter is what Kuhn called 'normal science'. Normal science moves forward quickly and consistently thanks to the scaffolding that the paradigm offers. As described earlier, the paradigm determines a way to see the world. By doing so, the paradigm also determines problems and ways to solve them. There comes a point, however, where the _old_ paradigm gets confronted to a barrier; an insurmountable wall. This problem builds up tension and becomes such a deal-breaker for some scientists, often new(ish) members of the field because of their lower intellectual (and professional) attachment to the old paradigm, that new paradigms are developed. These new paradigms solve the aforementioned problem, but open others. In this moment of crisis is where the 'revolution' begins. Any new paradigm must prove itself _better_ than the old one in order to replace it. Obviously, producing a new paradigm that is better than the longstanding worldview is extremely difficult; that is why a crisis is necessary for a revolution. Moreover, how are the new paradigms supposed to be compared with the old one? Normally, we would think that a better paradigm would be a _truer_ paradigm, one that better describes _reality_. Kuhn proposes something else. He proposes that every specialized field holds collectively shared _values_ for evaluation; e.g., simplicity, parsimony, power to predict. However –and this is where his genius stands out once again– every scientist weighs each value differently, hence differences in paradigm evaluations emerge. Simplifying the situation, these differences produces _factions_ of scientists who promote one or another paradigm and develop it until a breaking point, where it stands out and over the rest of the contending paradigms. At that point, this reigning paradigm becomes the de facto worldview for the scientists in that field, and a new stage of normal science begins*. ### Pre-paradigm vs Mature scientific endeavors Naturally, according to Kuhn's historical analysis, the development of any scientific discipline cycles between a state of 'normal science' and a state of 'revolution'. In the former, one paradigm reigns and development is steady. In the latter, a crisis yields a conflict between new paradigms and the old one, and development is rather disorganized. Zooming out, however, a new dichotomy appears: pre-paradigm science versus mature science. Here, Kuhn finds that mature sciences (e.g., physics, biology) are steadily moving forward within the aforementioned cycle. However, new disciplines begin in a pre-paradigm stage, where development is slow and disorganized because no paradigm (i.e., no common worldview) clearly reigns; it is a stage of widespread revolution. Modern examples could be behavioural economics and even cognitive science. Time, work, and surely patience, transform a pre-paradigm discipline into a mature scientific field. ### Isolated science vs Science connected to the world During the stage of normal science, a discipline can develop very quickly because the worldview is clear and strong, so the work to do is more mechanical than during revolutions. Here, Kuhn noted something that was eye-opening for me. He mentioned that during the normal science stage, scientists become very specialized and write articles for each other in specialized journals. He says this in a good way, presenting it as a key element for the speed in which science progresses. I immediately thought, however, in how much effort we currently put into connecting academia with the "real world". All around I have heard critics stating that scientists "stay in their bubble" instead of producing _useful_ results. However, considering Kuhn's view, we should probably be more cautious; we should not straightforwardly condemn isolated scientific endeavors, for this isolation might a necessary element for their speedy development. --- Concluding this article, I want to repeat that this book changed the way I understand scientific endeavors in general. In fact, it described the deeply human and societal characteristics that I have observed in science and that were confusing me because they were at odds with the folk view of science that most of us hold, that of science as an endeavor of _steady_ advancement towards truth. Today, I understand science as more _human_ than ever before. \* I must say that this philosophically groundbreaking point is oversimplified here. Previously, science had been seen as a steady effort towards _truth_ via de senses (see [Positivism](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Positivism)). Kuhn advanced a relativistic view where _scientific_ truth was the result of scientific work, and that this truth was constrained to the scientific paradigm where the scientific truth was developed. created_date:: [[2017 12 31]]