Philosophy of Being and Knowledge

Philosophy of Science

Thomas Kuhn's Historical Theory of Science

Thomas Samuel Kuhn (1922-1996), an American historian and philosopher of science, challenged Karl Popper's belief that a single negative fact could falsify a scientific theory. Instead, Kuhn argued that science progresses historically through distinct stages. He described the initial phase of scientific development as "pre-science," where early theories emerge, scientific communities form, and scholars make discoveries and engage in debate on relevant topics. In pre-science, knowledge accumulates and young scientists are trained by their predecessors. However, pre-science is marked by significant drawbacks due to its fragmentation into various schools and directions. This fragmentation leads to three main problems: first, researchers can only align their methods and results with their own school’s adherents; second, considerable time and effort are spent criticizing other schools rather than advancing knowledge; and third, students must learn the theories of each school before choosing the one that resonates with them, leaving knowledge of unchosen schools as redundant. Fields such as psychology, linguistics, and philosophy, among others, have historically experienced the pre-science stage, as did physics, chemistry, mathematics, biology, and sociology in the past.

At some point, the struggle among pre-science schools results in one prevailing and becoming the sole paradigm in its field. Kuhn termed this stage "normal science." Normal science is characterized by consensus among scientists who base their work on a single theory, employing uniform methods and pursuing common goals. This cohesive framework is what Kuhn referred to as a "paradigm." The existence of a single paradigm makes normal science effective, as all scientists work collaboratively towards common objectives within this paradigm, eliminating the need for internal debate. Students study only the established paradigm, making their education highly relevant to their scientific work. Textbooks that are universally accepted by the scientific community signify normal science.

The greatest value in normal science is the paradigm. Scientists are intensely committed to the paradigm, dedicating themselves to its support and defense while resolving problems that reinforce it. Kuhn called these problems "puzzles," and scientists work to solve these within the paradigm.

However, the development of a paradigm is not eternal. Eventually, scientists encounter "anomalies," facts that cannot be explained within the existing paradigm. Kuhn believed that such anomalies do not immediately falsify a theory, as Popper suggested. Rather, scientists are unlikely to abandon a paradigm that generations have dedicated their lives to simply because of one anomaly. For instance, scientists are unlikely to discard the belief that all crows are black due to the sighting of a single white crow. It is easier to propose a reason for the anomaly than to abandon the paradigm. Nevertheless, when one anomaly appears, it is likely to be followed by others. Even with numerous anomalies, the scientific community may ignore them or develop auxiliary hypotheses to fit them into the paradigm. However, while older scientists cling to the paradigm, younger scientists, who have not invested as heavily in it, begin to focus on anomalies. This generates conflict, as older scientists dismiss the younger ones and their work. Kuhn referred to this struggle as a "crisis in normal science." No matter how seriously scientists address anomalies, the paradigm remains resilient, as reality's facts cannot falsify it. A paradigm shifts only when a new one is created to replace the old.

The emergence of a new paradigm results in a scientific revolution: young scientists experience the excitement of discovery, criticize the older generation as incompetent, and the new paradigm, designed to address the anomalies of the old science, takes its place. The new paradigm undergoes the same cycle as its predecessor. Initially, scientists enthusiastically adopt it as not only a method of explaining the world but as an absolute truth, developing it further, restructuring educational programs, revising textbooks, adapting laboratories and institutions, and creating new scientific societies and journals. Yet, eventually, a new anomaly will emerge that the new paradigm cannot address. This anomaly will attract the attention of younger scientists, who will disregard the achievements of their predecessors and embrace innovation, leading to the creation of yet another new paradigm.

Thus, Kuhn believed that science does not accumulate knowledge in a linear fashion, as each new paradigm begins the process of knowledge accumulation anew. The history of science is characterized by continuous scientific revolutions, with paradigms rising and falling. Each new paradigm is a complete negation of its predecessor, and scientists recognized as geniuses within one paradigm may not hold the same authority within another. Any pre-science has the potential to become normal science if it establishes a paradigm.