Review and Critic Paper
The Structure of Science Revolution :
Chapter 2 & 7
by Kuhn, T. S
Seminar on Technology Innovation
Professor : Sung Joo Bae
Student name : Hye Sun Lee
Student number : 2011313311
Scholar Kohn claims a concept of paradigm, normal science and science revolution
throughout his essay-“The structure of science revolution”- in chapter 2 and 7. His
perspectives on existing science and philosophy are to connect accumulated achievements of
science as in historical perspectives and science philosophy based on logical positivism. Thus
in order to understand and to investigate on a science topic close to truth requires repetitions
of evolution process; which this refers his concept of science revolution. Also existing theory
needs to be evaluated and to be approached various ways which these activities require
scholars to know historical research background.
Kohn denies that the existing science structure can be accumulative and continuous. But he
claims that science evolution comes from paradigm shift until problem gets to be solved.
Therefore he supports his claims by introducing concept of paradigm, normal science and
science revolution. Paradigm in a small picture is a proven framework that scholars shares
together. The development of paradigm is from normal science stage where scholars
challenge and develop their theories or idea based on pre-science. Thus science revolution
occurs through continuous stages of ‘normal science  crisis  2nd normal science  2nd
crisis  repeat’ forming paradigm. And throughout the process, scholars may be able to
define paradigm as detailed and complimenting imperfection.
In my point of view, the contributions of this book are (1) Defining scholars’ research
framework as paradigm, (2) Suggesting concepts which refers process of a scientific
revolution with various examples, (3) Claimed science evolution may come from destruction
of distinct theory rather than continuously accumulated developments. This is because it has
been very hard to layout a logical basis for investigating habitual or historical phenomenon as
in a distinct arrangement. Honestly, I am not familiar of science theories or physics. But
considering how science theories and ideas have evaluated in early stages, his concepts of
paradigm and science revolution are brand new perspective as well as a highly controversial
topic. Also his concept of paradigm contains wide range of mean that can be controverted in
various ways. For example, within the questioning of “what is paradigm?”, it is hard to
answer or prove what it is. With this issue, Kohn provides two major concepts.
1. Paradigm is shared by scholars in order to reflect all of the components that are
established on a certain topic. This includes belief, value, research techniques and etc.
2. Paradigm is rather exemplar than stipulated method
But I also interpreted his concept of paradigm as “categorizing stages of science
revolution”. Looking at concepts as in stages for preparing science revolution, his logic of
repeating normal science stage is to refine paradigm which lead towards revolution. However,
this is not always the case that innovation appears from topics from non related paradigm
sector. In a same way, I personally questioned “what is difference between science revolution
and paradigm shift?” These two concepts seem to be same and not clearly defined whether
they are same or not but written in similar context.
As a student, I carefully raise an issue of an applying his concept in today. Although his
essay seems to be fit into recent researching environment as well as 50 years ago, we need to
change our perspectives to differentiate and to suggest better concept then Kohn’s. Because
research environment as in technological equipments, methods of interaction between
scholars and science revolutionary stakeholders are continuously changing. Yet there are
many concepts and theories to prove technological trajectory, technological cycle and
patterns, they are still on a based on his concept than be against the concept.