The Structure of Scientific Revolutions
Thomas S. Kuhn
In his essay, “The Structure of Scientific Revolutions,” Thomas Kuhn addresses
his observations regarding changes in the history of science and scientific thought. His
introduction to this subject occurred in a period in which he was developing his
dissertation in theoretical physics. Kuhn became involved in an experimental college
course for the non-scientist. This course exposed Kuhn to the history of science and in
his words, “radically undermined some of my basic conceptions about the nature of
science and the reasons for its special success.” (vii). The paradigm in which he viewed
his community, the scientific community, began to shift and he was left with questions
that the norms could not answer.
To understand the Kuhn’s theory, first it is necessary to define a paradigm. A
paradigm is a set of ideas or theories about how things work to which a majority of the
involved people subscribe. It is defined by an online dictionary as “a pattern or an
example of something. The word also connotes the ideas of a mental picture and pattern
of thought.” In Kuhn’s areas of science, he describes the paradigms of “normal science”
as a set of fixed beliefs. These beliefs are “the foundation of the educational initiation
that prepares and licenses the student for professional practice.”(5). He also noted that
the paradigm is enforced through the “rigorous and rigid” preparation helps ensure that
the received beliefs are fixed in student’s minds. Paradigms create a framework for the
scientist to formulate questions, define answers, and develop theories. Kuhn states, “No
natural history can be interpreted in the absence of at least some implicit body of
intertwined theoretical and methodological belief that permits selection, evaluation, and
criticism” (16-17). The paradigm is necessary for the development of theory and
understanding about the natural world.
Kuhn describes the phenomenon of the entrenchment of the paradigm as such that
the mind may ignore data that does not conform to the rules of the paradigm. Unusual
information is ignored or discarded to maintain the paradigm limitations. He
demonstrated this fact with a simple experiment with a deck of cards. He flashed eight
cards at 10 second intervals then reviewed the cards at five second intervals. Kuhn asked
the subject to name them. The subjects on average overlooked the red spade, black heart,
and other anomalies. This experiment illuminates our ability to ignore the details that do
not fit our perceptions, our paradigm, a distressing thought when applied throughout the
entire world. Kuhn goes on to stress that research is not about discovering the unknown,
but is “a strenuous and devoted attempt to force nature into the conceptual boxes supplied
by professional education” (5). In other words, the goal is to prove the rule, rather than
the exceptions.
But we know that normal science does change. We know that the world is round,
matter is made of atoms, and x-rays are a useful diagnostic tool; so the paradigms do
shift. Kuhn attributed this shift in paradigm as an “anomaly which subverts the existing
tradition of scientific practice” (6). A “scientific revolution, the tradition-shattering
complements to the tradition-bound activity of normal science” is how Kuhn described
these shifts in the established paradigm (6). Scientific revolutions happen when an
inquiry develops a collection of “facts.” These facts can be interpreted in a variety of
ways by different researchers. Theses theories are weeded down to a pre-paradigm which
explains some, but not all of the facts. This paradigm must attract the new generation of
researchers to survive. It will grow through those younger researchers, who must
eventually over time take over the discipline, until those that do not subscribe to this
prevalent theory must retire from lists or face ridicule for their outdated ideas.
Remember those who said that Galileo was mad and how much of his theory is now
considered common sense.
Now necessarily, the new paradigm leaves a great deal of questions about how
other facts in normal science fit within the paradigm. These questions lead to research
intent on proving the paradigm correct. The “mop up” operations as Kuhn called them
help to establish the paradigm in the main stream and expand the knowledge contained
within the boundaries of normal science. These series of paradigm shifts are necessary
for growth within our perceptual boundaries.
While Kuhn addressed scientific paradigms specifically, his insights into human
perception and behavior are invaluable when applied to all disciplines. Humans are often
programmed from the earliest years to maintain the status quo and ignore those things
that can not be easily explained. Collectively, we have difficulty in dealing with change
and tend to be resistive. If the change is attractive to enough people, it slowly crawls into
the mainstream. As more and more people are converted to the new paradigm, it
becomes the norm and the old ways become old-fashioned and out of step. This is
evident in the educational systems in regards to technology. Twenty years ago, the idea
of computers in the classroom was very new and not generally accepted. Computers
were a novelty item that was great if you had the money, but not a necessary ingredient
for successfully educating children. Today, technology is widely acknowledged as a
necessary tool in developing citizens who are able to communicate in the global
community we have developed. This paradigm shift has not yet become a universally
accepted fact, but is becoming prevalent. There are still people who do not believe that
technology has merit in education. They feel that the old “back to basics” method is how
children should be taught. That memorizing, comprehension, low end of Bloom’s
taxonomy was fine in the earlier years of education, but the complexity of today’s issues
and the sheer amount of information that needs to be processed by today’s students can
not be addressed in such a simple manner. Today’s student must be able to acquire
information, access and evaluate the data, keeping only that which is necessary for their
production of a product. To limit our children to the education methods used by our
teachers would be a grave disservice to both them and us. We need them to be creative
thinkers and evaluators. To achieve these goals, we have taken those practices from the
earlier education and modified them to fit the needs of our children. These practices
which encourage higher order thinking skills and cooperative learning can be expanded
and modified according to the needs of the students. Technology is a tool that can be used
to reach those goals through the direction of a skilled teacher. As younger teachers enter
the profession, the use of technology to achieve educational goals will become more
prevalent. As the practice spreads and becomes the norm, the paradigm begins to
solidify.
As Kuhn pointed out, normal science grows and progresses through the paradigm
shift. Education also grows through the shifts in the paradigm. A fact that gives one
pause is the ease that we can miss data that does not fit within our paradigm. For a
teacher, staying abreast of the latest works, the newest pre-paradigm ideas is as necessary
as building lesson plans or grading materials. Without new ideas and methods that fit in
with world changes and which can be adapted to established teaching methods, education
will stagnate. A disservice that none of us can afford.