“The man who embraces a new paradigm at an early stage must often do so in defiance of the evidence provided by problem-solving. He must, that is, have faith that the new paradigm will succeed with the many large problems that confront it, knowing only that the older paradigm has failed with a few. A decision of that kind can only be made on faith.”

Thomas Kuhn

Has the path to enlightenment in science ever seemed like a straight line to you?  What if I told you that the very fabric of scientific understanding is periodically torn apart and rewoven, creating a tapestry of knowledge far more complex and intriguing than we once believed?

In 1962, a bespectacled American physicist and philosopher by the name of Thomas Kuhn hurled a metaphorical Molotov cocktail into the pristine halls of scientific thought. His book, “The Structure of Scientific Revolutions,” didn’t just challenge our understanding of scientific progress—it completely upended it.

The Paradigm Shift: A Scientific Revolution

Kuhn introduced the concept of “paradigms”—frameworks of understanding that guide scientific inquiry within a particular discipline. But here’s where it gets interesting: he proposed that these paradigms aren’t eternal. Instead, they’re subject to dramatic upheavals he termed “paradigm shifts.”

“The successive transition from one paradigm to another via revolution is the usual developmental pattern of mature science.”

Thomas Kuhn, The Structure of Scientific Revolutions

This concept was nothing short of groundbreaking. It proposed that scientific advancement is not a linear progression of knowledge, but rather a series of transformational adjustments. Consider a caterpillar metamorphosing into a butterfly—this is the amount of transformation Kuhn was describing in scientific terms.

The Three Phases of Scientific Progress

Kuhn’s model of scientific history proposes three distinct modes or phases that a scientific field can exist in. Each phase plays a crucial role in the development and evolution of scientific knowledge.

Phase 1 – The Pre-Paradigm Phase

Imagine a world where scientists speak different languages, follow different rules, and can’t agree on what questions are worth asking. This chaotic environment is what Kuhn called the pre-paradigm phase. It’s a time of slow progress, where competing theories duke it out for supremacy.

During this period, there is no field-wide consensual paradigm. Multiple paradigms may compete for acceptance, but none have been adopted by the scientific community as a whole. As a result, little progress is achieved. Kuhn utilizes the area of physical optics to demonstrate this period, in which there was no standard set of procedures or phenomena to serve as the foundation for a certain scientific paradigm.

Think of it as the scientific equivalent of the Wild West—lawless, unpredictable, and ripe for revolution. There’s no specialized nomenclature, no agreed-upon methods, and no clear direction for research. It’s a time of confusion, but also of immense potential.

An obscure yet fascinating example of this phase can be found in the early days of quantum mechanics. Before the Copenhagen interpretation gained widespread acceptance, physicists were grappling with a multitude of competing interpretations, each with its own mathematical formalism and philosophical implications. This period of quantum confusion, rarely discussed in standard textbooks, exemplifies the creative chaos of the pre-paradigm phase.

Phase 2 – The Paradigm Phase

Eventually, one paradigm emerges victorious, ushering in a period of “normal science.” Scientists rally around this shared theory, developing specialized language and focusing their efforts on solving puzzles within the accepted framework.

This is the phase where scientists no longer have debates over first principles or argue over the correct methods for scientific study. There’s a consensus around a particular paradigmatic theory, providing a foundation on which to build further research.

Kuhn associates this phase with the “esotericization” of science—the development of distinctive terminology and puzzle-solving techniques. Normal science doesn’t seek out novelty or unknowns; instead, scientists tend to look for confirmation of the paradigmatic theory.

But here’s the catch: this period of stability comes with a price. As scientists become more entrenched in their paradigm, they grow resistant to new ideas. Anomalies that don’t fit the paradigm are often ignored or explained away. Novelty becomes undesirable, and scientists tend to resist anomalies during this phase.

This resistance to new ideas is why scientists tend to demand “extraordinary evidence” for “extraordinary claims.” Anomalous claims disrupt normal science, and the scientific community, stuck within a rigid paradigm, often rejects them at face value.

In truth, extraordinary claims require the same degree of evidence as any other scientific hypothesis, no more, no less. As such, when scientists firmly indoctrinated into an older paradigm are confronted with a paradigm that challenges their own, they demand “extraordinary evidence for extraordinary claims,” when in fact, no degree of evidence will ever convince them. This is why Kuhn stated that the old paradigm only fades away from its progenitors die, one funeral at a time.

A little-known example of this phenomenon can be found in the history of continental drift theory. When Alfred Wegener proposed his idea of continental drift in 1912, it was met with fierce resistance from the geological community. The prevailing paradigm of static continents was so entrenched that Wegener’s evidence—including matching coastlines, similar rock formations, and fossil distributions across continents—was dismissed or explained away for decades. It wasn’t until the 1960s, long after Wegener’s death, that the theory of plate tectonics finally gained acceptance, revolutionizing our understanding of Earth’s geology.

The Pitfall of Paradigms

Kuhn famously remarked that “science progresses one funeral at a time.” It’s a stark reminder that even in the world of objective science, human nature plays a significant role. And this is why science can never be completely objective: because science is conducted by humans deeply immersed in the subjectivity of consciousness, from which it can never escape. Far from being objective, science is always open to interpretation. 

The old guard, invested in the current paradigm, often resists change until they’re replaced by a new generation more open to fresh ideas.

This rigidity is why Kuhn states that old scientific paradigms typically fade out only when their progenitors die. The field becomes so indoctrinated into the old paradigm that it cannot venture beyond it, creating a barrier to progress that can only be overcome with time and generational change.

Phase 3 – The Revolutionary Phase

As anomalies accumulate, a crisis emerges. The paradigm begins to creak under the weight of unexplained phenomena. This is where the magic happens—a new paradigm is born, often led by young scientists or those new to the field who aren’t yet indoctrinated into the old ways of thinking.

Kuhn calls this the revolutionary or extraordinary phase. Scientific anomalies are given more attention during this time, and a particular anomaly eventually gives way to what Kuhn calls a crisis. The field finds itself in a state similar to the pre-paradigm phase for a short time.

Different types of experimentation begin to emerge as scientists attempt to identify the structure and nature of the anomaly. Eventually, the crisis resolves into a resolution—a new paradigm is born. The entire field then reorients itself around this new paradigm, marking a paradigm shift.

A lesser-known example of this revolutionary phase can be found in the field of paleoanthropology. For much of the 20th century, the “single species hypothesis” dominated the field, positing that human evolution was a linear progression with only one hominin species existing at any given time. However, as more fossil evidence accumulated, this paradigm began to crack. The discovery of multiple hominin species coexisting in time and space led to a crisis in the field. This crisis eventually gave way to the “bushy tree” model of human evolution, which recognizes a complex, branching pattern of hominin species—a paradigm shift that has fundamentally altered our understanding of human origins.

The Agents of Change

Kuhn identified two categories of scientists who are most likely to lead these paradigm shifts:

1. Young scientists who haven’t yet been fully indoctrinated into the old paradigm.
2. Scientists who are new to the field and bring fresh perspectives.

These individuals are crucial because they’re open to alternative understandings, which is paramount for scientific paradigms to shift. Many of the old guard will refuse to accept the new paradigm and will attack it, reinforcing Kuhn’s observation that science often progresses “one funeral at a time.”

An obscure yet powerful example of this can be found in the story of Barbara McClintock, a cytogeneticist who discovered genetic transposition—the ability of genes to change position on chromosomes. Her work was so far ahead of its time that it was largely ignored or dismissed by the scientific community for decades. It wasn’t until a new generation of molecular biologists came of age that her work was fully appreciated, eventually earning her a Nobel Prize in 1983, long after her initial discoveries in the 1940s and 1950s.

Beyond the Boundaries of Conventional Science

But what about the ideas that exist in the twilight zone of scientific exploration? Kuhn’s groundbreaking model only partially accounts for the realm of knowledge that exists beyond the boundaries of traditional scientific inquiry.

These are the whispered traditions passed down through generations, the phenomena that defy current scientific explanations, the insights gleaned from altered states of consciousness. They’re the unexplained occurrences that spark wonder and curiosity, and the hidden knowledge guarded by select groups or individuals.

While many of these ideas may seem far-fetched within the current scientific paradigm, history has shown that today’s fringe theories can become tomorrow’s accepted science. The journey from ridicule to revolution is often paved with persistence and open-mindedness.

An esoteric example of this lies in the field of parapsychology. While largely dismissed by mainstream science, research into phenomena such as telepathy and precognition continues at institutions like the Division of Perceptual Studies at the University of Virginia. Some researchers argue that these studies challenge our current paradigms of consciousness and reality, potentially paving the way for future scientific revolutions.

The Double-Edged Sword of Obscurity

The allure of the unknown is a double-edged sword. On one hand, it fuels imagination and encourages interdisciplinary approaches, pushing the boundaries of what’s possible. On the other hand, it can give rise to unsubstantiated claims and pseudoscience, distracting from rigorous inquiry.

The true art of scientific advancement lies in striking a balance between skepticism and openness. It’s about acknowledging the potential value of unconventional ideas while maintaining rigorous standards of evidence.

A fascinating example of this balance can be found in the story of Dan Shechtman, who discovered quasicrystals in 1982. His observation of a seemingly impossible five-fold symmetry in crystals was so at odds with established crystallography that he was ridiculed and even asked to leave his research group. Shechtman persisted, maintaining both his openness to new ideas and his commitment to rigorous evidence. His discovery eventually led to a paradigm shift in our understanding of crystal structures, earning him the Nobel Prize in Chemistry in 2011.

In the end, Kuhn’s work doesn’t just describe scientific revolutions—it is itself a revolution in how we understand science. It challenges us to see science not as a steady march towards truth but as a dynamic, ever-evolving process of discovery and rediscovery. And in doing so, it opens up endless possibilities for future scientific breakthroughs.

At the heart of scientific progress lies not just logic and evidence, but also intuition, creativity, and the willingness to venture into the unknown. As we face the scientific challenges of the future, may we all find the courage to question, the wisdom to doubt, and the faith to explore new paradigms.