This blog post explores the essence of change by examining how paradigms determine the direction and pace of scientific progress, moving beyond the common notion that science advances continuously.
Thomas Kuhn introduced the concept of the paradigm in his book “The Structure of Scientific Revolutions.” The term “paradigm,” now used across various fields, carried a profoundly shocking meaning at the time. With the introduction of the paradigm concept, the history of science—previously thought to be a continuous progression—was reinterpreted as a series of discontinuous paradigm shifts.
In Thomas Kuhn’s theory, there is a concept as significant as the paradigm: normal science. Normal science refers to scientific activity during periods when the paradigm is stable. Paradigm shifts do not occur frequently. Therefore, scientists spend most of their time—indeed, most scientists spend their entire careers—refining and building upon the existing paradigm. This process is called normal science. The period of normal science is one where a specific paradigm is accepted among its members. During this time, even if counterexamples are observed, the paradigm may be modified but does not undergo a complete change. Normal scientists focus on refining the paradigm and enhancing its predictive power.
Even if someone proposes a new paradigm, scientists adhering to the existing paradigm do not readily accept the new one. For a new paradigm to be accepted, counterexamples must be observed that the existing paradigm cannot withstand. Only when this situation arises can a new paradigm be accepted.
Another idea Thomas Kuhn changed through “The Structure of Scientific Revolutions” concerned the nature of science itself. Previously, science was thought to be a process of discovering absolute truths existing in nature. There was a belief that science would gradually progress over time and eventually reach the truth. However, according to Kuhn’s argument, nature exists independently of scientific laws; humans create natural laws to understand and predict it. Therefore, a paradigm shift is not scientific progress but simply a new perspective on nature.
Kuhn’s concept of paradigms is not limited to science. For instance, the concept of paradigms can also be applied to social sciences, economics, and psychology. In each discipline, when phenomena emerge that existing theories cannot explain, new theories emerge to replace the old ways of thinking. In economics, Keynesian economics explained the Great Depression and replaced classical economics. In psychology, Freud’s psychoanalytic theory shook traditional thinking about understanding human behavior. These examples demonstrate that paradigm shifts can play an innovative role beyond science.
Indeed, the concept of a paradigm can even be applied to Thomas Kuhn’s paradigm itself. Previously, the dominant paradigm held that science progressed gradually and continuously, enabling the discovery of truths inherent in nature. However, Kuhn overturned this. For instance, just as the heliocentric model replaced the geocentric model, Lavoisier’s oxygen theory replaced the phlogiston theory, and Aristotle’s physics was replaced by Newton’s universal gravitation, scientific progress is discontinuous and revolutionary.
Kuhn argued that science develops discontinuously through paradigm shifts, a concept he termed the scientific revolution. New paradigms could explain counterexamples that the old paradigm couldn’t, but the new paradigm didn’t necessarily have to precede the old one. In other words, even when the geocentric model was dominant, someone could have argued for the heliocentric model based on observed results. In this sense, the scientific revolution Kuhn describes is deeply connected to paradigm shifts.
If new paradigms emerge in the future, we will likely undergo a process similar to what Kuhn described. Counterexamples that the current paradigm cannot explain will accumulate, and a new perspective capable of explaining them will emerge. However, because we are currently within the existing paradigm, we cannot predict what paradigm will emerge next. Paradigm shifts are always discontinuous, and new paradigms emerge independently of the old ones. Therefore, we can only wait for sufficient counterexamples to be observed within the current paradigm, thereby triggering a revolution.
Paradigm shifts are not confined to science alone; they apply across society as a whole. For instance, the information revolution or digital revolution can also be seen as a kind of paradigm shift. In the past, manufacturing and physical production formed the core of the economy, but the information revolution elevated knowledge and data to become key resources. This is an example of a shift in the overall societal paradigm, not merely a technological advancement.
Ultimately, we await paradigm revolutions. Kuhn’s concept of paradigms will remain a crucial perspective in academia and society at large—past, present, and future.
