Chapter 14.1: This session covers the following content: Chapter VIII: "The Response to Crisis" from The Structure of Scientific Revolutions by Thomas Kuhn: Kuhn argues that scientific crises—situations where anomalies challenge the prevailing paradigm—are essential for the development of new scientific theories. However, scientists do not abandon paradigms at the first sign of trouble. Instead, they often persist, attempting to resolve anomalies within the existing framework. Anomalies alone aren't enough to overthrow a theory; a viable alternative must be available. Rejecting a paradigm is not merely about its mismatch with the world—it involves choosing a new paradigm that offers better explanatory power. Paradigm shifts are thus comparative judgments between competing frameworks. During periods of normal science, puzzles and anomalies are expected and don't usually threaten the paradigm. Only when anomalies accumulate and resist resolution does a crisis occur. Even then, scientists often delay reacting, setting problems aside or waiting for better tools. If a new paradigm emerges during the crisis, it can lead to a scientific revolution. This shift is not cumulative but transformative—it reconstructs the field's foundation, often abruptly and unpredictably. In the midst of crisis, scientists’ research and attitudes shift, eventually leading to the birth of a new normal science under a new paradigm.
Chapter 14.2 : This session covers the following content: Chapter IX: "The Nature and Necessity of Scientific Revolutions" from The Structure of Scientific Revolutions by Thomas Kuhn: Scientific revolutions are radical, non-cumulative shifts where one paradigm is replaced by another, incompatible one. They are essential to scientific progress, emerging when persistent anomalies create a sense of crisis within the scientific community. Kuhn likens scientific revolutions to political revolutions: both arise from a breakdown in the existing order and involve a deep reorganization of beliefs, practices, and standards. Paradigm shifts are not just about changing theories; they involve changes in methods, standards, values, and even the kinds of problems scientists consider legitimate. When paradigms compete, there's no neutral ground—each is defended using its own logic. This makes paradigm choice more about persuasion and less about straightforward logic or experiment. As such, paradigm debates are inherently circular and cannot be fully resolved by empirical evidence alone. Kuhn emphasizes that scientists’ commitment to a paradigm is necessary for normal science, even in areas lacking precedent. Yet, when anomalies resist integration, they can trigger new theories and ultimately lead to a revolution—shifting the entire conceptual framework through which scientists see the world. These shifts don't just change science—they can change what scientists perceive as reality itself. Paradigms shape not only scientific practice but also the very world that scientists observe and interpret.
Chapter 14.3 : This session covers the following content: Chapter X: "Revolutions as Changes of World View" from The Structure of Scientific Revolutions by Thomas Kuhn: Kuhn argues that a scientific revolution doesn't just change theories—it changes the very way scientists see the world. When a paradigm shifts, it can feel as if the world itself has changed, because scientists interpret and perceive reality through the lens of their new paradigm. Perception is not purely objective; it's shaped by prior experience and the conceptual framework provided by the paradigm. This is why, after a paradigm shift, scientists may literally see familiar phenomena differently, even though the external world remains the same. Students, through training, gradually adopt the worldview of their scientific community. But this worldview is not fixed—it depends both on the natural world and on the dominant scientific tradition they are taught. Kuhn uses examples from astronomy to show how phenomena long observed came to be seen in new ways once existing categories could no longer explain them. This suggests that paradigms shape perception itself, not just interpretation. Normal science doesn’t aim to change paradigms—it works within them. Paradigms aren't corrected by accumulating new data; they’re only overthrown when anomalies build up and a new way of seeing becomes necessary. Ultimately, after a revolution, scientists still observe the same world—but they perceive and understand it through a fundamentally new lens.
Chapter 14.4 : This session covers the following content: Chapter XI: "The Invisibility of Revolutions" from The Structure of Scientific Revolutions by Thomas Kuhn: Kuhn argues that scientific revolutions are often hidden from view, especially in how science is taught and understood by both scientists and the public. This invisibility is largely due to textbooks, which are rewritten after each revolution to reflect the new paradigm. In doing so, they present science as a linear, cumulative process, rather than one marked by radical breaks and shifts. These texts selectively reinterpret or distort history, making it seem as though past scientists were working on the same problems and using the same methods as today. As a result, the revolutionary changes that shaped modern science are erased or downplayed, and scientific development is portrayed as steady progress rather than a series of paradigm shifts. Kuhn notes that science preserves the names of its founders but often rewrites or forgets the content of their actual work to fit the current paradigm. This creates the illusion that science has always been moving toward the present framework, hiding the true, disruptive nature of scientific revolutions. In reality, science develops not by adding bricks to an existing structure, but by periodically tearing down and rebuilding the framework itself.
Chapter 14.5 : This session covers the following content: Chapter XII: "The Resolution of Revolutions" from The Structure of Scientific Revolutions by Thomas Kuhn: Kuhn explores how scientific revolutions are resolved—how a new paradigm ultimately replaces the old. Paradigm shifts are rarely driven by proof or purely rational argument. Instead, conversion to a new worldview often begins with younger or less entrenched scientists who are more open to change. In science, theory testing doesn’t involve comparing one theory to nature in isolation. It happens in the context of competition between paradigms, where scientists weigh which of two frameworks better explains existing data. But all theories fit the facts only “more or less”, so decisions often hinge on comparative advantages, not absolute proofs. Shifts in paradigm are not resolved by data alone. Instead, Kuhn argues they are “conversion experiences”—deep changes in perspective that are often influenced by personal, even aesthetic judgments. A new paradigm might be seen as simpler, more elegant, or more promising, even before it solves any of the outstanding problems. Historical examples like Copernicus and Darwin show that revolutions can take decades, with the older generation often resisting change while younger scientists gradually adopt the new view. Kuhn emphasizes that faith, intuition, and aesthetic appeal often play crucial roles early in a revolution. Some scientists commit to a new paradigm despite limited evidence, driven by the belief that it will eventually succeed where the old one failed. Ultimately, as more scientists convert and the new paradigm begins to solve problems effectively, a consensus forms, and resistance fades. At that point, those who still reject the new paradigm may be seen as outside the scientific community.
Chapter 14.6 : This session covers the following content: Chapter XIII: "Progress Through Revolutions" from The Structure of Scientific Revolutions by Thomas Kuhn: Kuhn concludes by questioning the traditional idea that science is progressing steadily toward an ultimate, objective truth. Scientific revolutions do not necessarily bring us closer to a final reality; rather, they represent shifts to new paradigms that redefine what counts as knowledge, problems, and solutions. In science, progress is measured internally, by a specialized community that shares training, methods, and values. Appeals to external authorities like the public or political leaders are considered inappropriate—only the scientific community can judge scientific validity. This reflects a belief that science operates under a shared set of standards, allowing for meaningful evaluation and comparison between paradigms. However, if different paradigms used incompatible standards, it would challenge the notion of a unified scientific truth. Kuhn suggests that scientific development might resemble biological evolution—driven by adaptation and competition, without a set direction or ultimate goal. The example of Darwin’s theory illustrates how deeply unsettling such a view can be. Just as natural selection lacks a predetermined endpoint, scientific evolution may also be goal-less, shaped by shifting paradigms rather than linear advancement toward one final truth. Thus, progress in science happens through revolutions, not because each step brings us objectively closer to the truth, but because each new paradigm better fits the needs, puzzles, and standards of its time.