How my observations for Thomas Kuhn's book - ''The Structure of Scientific

Revolutions'' (Thomas S. Kuhn, 1970, 2nd ed. Chicago, London: University of

Chicago Press Ltd., 210 pages) related to anomaly and the emergence of
scientific discoveries

Tewabe Tadesse GSR 9319/16

Introduction
According to Kuhn’s notion, a mature scientific community can be determined by the paradigms
with relative simplicity. Paradigms are characterized by rough agreement on basic principles,
ontology, acceptable forms that explanations should take, etc. The rough agreement permits
more detailed work (designing experiments, calculating important constants, "further articulation
of the paradigm"), and the lack of any hard and fast rules permits minor innovations and
modifications to be made as the need arises.

According to Kuhn, a paradigm is comparable to the idea of a "prototype"—a remarkable or

good example of scientific inquiry or discovery that should be emulated; it is not a fundamental
or widespread underlying attitude, but it does help develop and disseminate those views.
However, taking a closer look at the concept in its broadest sense, a paradigm is an instance of
consensus-building scientific study that is valuable to mimic or emulate in order to solve puzzles
and establish a framework within which regular science can operate.

Kuhn rejects rules as necessary for normal science because one can find rules that do not apply
to all cases of normal scientific research, but the paradigms will be held in common. Essentially,
as Kuhn highlights, the problem with rules for normal science is the same as giving necessary
and sufficient conditions for puzzle. But the paradigm (as a model of research worth following)
has to guide normal scientific research.

1
Rules versus Paradigms and the Anomaly Perspective

Comparable to a common ontology and worldview is a paradigm. That is, scientists within a
paradigm see the same things when they witness an object falling. However, when two scientists
have different paradigms, they are "worlds apart" and have distinct underlying theories about
what they observe. A paradigm is a set of deeply ingrained attitudes. A paradigm is a cultural
construct in science. Rules are specific instructions on how to accomplish science. Kuhn offers
an intriguing take on paradigms and rules, arguing that all that is necessary for research to
proceed is a common cultural understanding of what science is. It is not necessary to establish
explicit rules. This is valid for newly developing scientific disciplines where the laws are still
being worked out. The most important realization is that science doesn't progress by working
with explicit materials like laws, statistics, or experimental results. Due to shifts in the
underlying cultural views, it first changes extremely gradually and then dramatically.

It is difficult to ascertain the "rules" that scientists who adhere to the same paradigm employ.
This is due, in part, to the fact that scientists may differ in how to interpret a paradigm. A
paradigm's existence does not imply the existence of a comprehensive set of norms. Furthermore,
implicit knowledge—knowledge that comes from experience and cannot be expressed clearly—
often serves as guidance for scientists.

According to Kuhn, conducting research is like to piecing together a puzzle. There are rules for
puzzles. In general, puzzles have predefined answers. In this instance, we typically foresee the
research findings beforehand. Prior to data collection, processing, and interpretation, typical
scientific research challenges are predictable. In a similar vein, puzzle-fitting issues are chosen
based on whether or not they have answers (Kuhn, 1962:37). Furthermore, the commitments
made by normal science include theoretical, conceptual, instrumental, and methodological
guidelines that are derived from the corresponding paradigms (Kuhn, 1962:44). In a similar vein,
rules governing puzzles ought to restrict the types of admissible solutions as well as the methods
by which they can be solved (Kuhn, 1962:38. As you can see, normal science satisfies all the
criteria required to be fulfilled in the puzzle solving context.

2
Surprisingly, the goal of research is to find out what is already known. This is true even if there
is less variation in the expected results than there is in the conceivable outcomes. A research
study is typically deemed unsuccessful if the results do not fit within this expected range of
outcomes. Given all of these details, Kuhn asks, why is study necessary? Additionally, Kuhn
contends that because conventional science is so inflexible and scientific communities are so
supportive, how can a paradigm shift occur? Discoveries resulting from interactions with
anomalies have the potential to alter paradigms.

Normal science seeks no originality of fact or theory and, when it succeeds, discovers none.
Nevertheless, science continues to unearth original and unexpected events, and researchers have
developed bold new hypotheses time and time again. Paradigm shifts are triggered by
fundamental novelty in both fact and theory. So how does a paradigm shift occur? There are two
methods: by invention, which is the novelty of thought, or by discovery, which is the novelty of
actuality. But the line that separates creativity from discovery, or fact from theory, will show
itself to be incredibly artificial right away. This artificiality, according to Kuhn's theory, provides
a crucial hint to many of the central claims of his essay.

The awareness of anomaly, or the knowledge that nature has defied the paradigm-induced
expectations that underpin conventional research, is the first step toward discovery. Next, the
anomaly's area is investigated. When the unusual becomes the expected and the paradigm is
altered accordingly, the paradigm transformation is considered complete. The scientist is able "to
see nature in a different way" as a result.

Normal science is quite effective in inducing novelties to occur, even though it is not a search
focused on them and initially tends to suppress them. Why? An initial paradigm successfully
explains the majority of the observations and experiments that are easily obtainable by those who
practice that science. Increased precision and understanding of the paradigm are the outcome of
new and improved techniques and tools. Researchers can only identify a problem with an
experiment when they are precisely aware of what to expect from it.

As a result, anomaly only emerges in contrast to the paradigm's background. It is more sensitive
to identifying an abnormality and bringing about change when the paradigm is more exact and

3
comprehensive. A paradigm that is resistant to change ensures that anomalies that cause a
paradigm shift will pierce through to the very heart of what is known.

 Anomalies and Normal Science: Kuhn argues that scientific research is typically
conducted within a framework of accepted theories and paradigms, which he refers to as
"normal science." Anomalies are observations or experimental results that cannot be
explained within the existing paradigm. These anomalies can accumulate over time,
creating tension within the scientific community.

 Crisis and Scientific Revolution: The accumulation of anomalies can lead to a crisis in
the established paradigm. Kuhn suggests that when anomalies reach a critical point, they
can trigger a paradigm shift, leading to a scientific revolution. During a scientific
revolution, the existing paradigm is replaced by a new one that can account for the
previously unexplained anomalies.

 Paradigm Shifts and Emergence of Discoveries: Kuhn's work emphasizes that major
scientific discoveries often emerge during periods of paradigm shifts. As the old
paradigm is replaced by a new one, scientists may reevaluate existing assumptions and
methods, leading to the emergence of new theories and discoveries that can better explain
the anomalies.

 Role of Scientific Communities: Kuhn emphasizes the importance of scientific

communities in the process of paradigm shifts and the emergence of new discoveries. The
acceptance of a new paradigm often requires the consensus of the scientific community,
and the emergence of new discoveries is influenced by the collective efforts and
interactions of scientists within a particular field.

 Incommensurability: Kuhn introduces the concept of incommensurability, suggesting

that paradigms are not directly comparable and that different paradigms may involve
fundamentally different ways of understanding the world. This concept has implications
for how scientific discoveries are made and how they are understood within different
paradigms.

4
These points highlight the complex relationship between anomalies, paradigm shifts, and the
emergence of scientific discoveries, as outlined in Kuhn's "The Structure of Scientific
Revolutions." The book has had a profound impact on the philosophy of science and continues to
influence discussions about scientific progress and the nature of scientific revolutions.

Kuhn's strong arguments

Thomas Kuhn's thesis in "The Structure of Scientific Revolutions" introduces several compelling
arguments regarding anomalies and the emergence of scientific discoveries. Some strong and
interesting arguments include:

1. Anomaly as a Driver of Scientific Change: Kuhn argues that anomalies, or unexpected

observations that do not fit into the existing scientific paradigm, play a crucial role in driving
scientific change. Anomalies create a sense of crisis within the scientific community, prompting
scientists to question the prevailing theories and paradigms. This questioning leads to a
reevaluation of existing assumptions and can ultimately lead to the emergence of new scientific
paradigms.

2. Role of Anomalies in Paradigm Shifts: Kuhn contends that anomalies are central to the
process of scientific revolutions and paradigm shifts. When anomalies accumulate and cannot be
explained within the existing framework, they challenge the prevailing paradigm's ability to
account for all observed phenomena. This can lead to a breakdown of the old paradigm and the
eventual emergence of a new paradigm that better accommodates the anomalies.

3. Scientific Discovery as a Social Process: Kuhn emphasizes the social and communal nature of
scientific discovery, arguing that the scientific community collectively responds to anomalies
and participates in the construction of new paradigms. The recognition and interpretation of
anomalies, as well as the acceptance of new paradigms, are influenced by social and cultural
factors within the scientific community.

4. Incommensurability of Paradigms: Kuhn introduces the concept of incommensurability,

suggesting that different scientific paradigms are not directly comparable or commensurable.
This challenges the traditional view of scientific progress as a cumulative and linear process.
According to Kuhn, paradigms are characterized by different sets of concepts, standards, and
methods, making it difficult to directly compare or translate between them.

5. Resistance to Anomalies and Paradigm Shifts: Kuhn discusses the resistance of the scientific
community to anomalies and paradigm shifts, highlighting that scientists often attempt to
accommodate anomalies within the existing paradigm rather than immediately accepting a new
paradigm. This resistance can prolong periods of crisis and delay the acceptance of new
scientific frameworks.

5
Kuhn's thesis provides a thought-provoking perspective on the role of anomalies in scientific
development and the dynamics of scientific revolutions, challenging traditional views of
scientific progress and emphasizing the complex and multifaceted nature of scientific discovery.

Limitations of Kuhn's Thesis

Thomas Kuhn's "The Structure of Scientific Revolutions" introduces several limitations related
to anomalies and scientific discoveries. Here are some key limitations to consider:

 Subjectivity: Kuhn's work emphasizes the role of scientific communities in determining

when anomalies have reached a critical point and when a paradigm shift is necessary.
However, the criteria for determining when anomalies are significant enough to warrant a
paradigm shift can be subjective and can vary between different scientific communities.

 Slow Progress: The accumulation of anomalies and the emergence of scientific

discoveries during a paradigm shift can be a slow and unpredictable process. This can
lead to long periods of scientific stagnation, where progress is limited by the existing
paradigm.

 Incommensurability (lacking a basis of comparison): Kuhn's concept of

incommensurability suggests that different paradigms may involve fundamentally
different ways of understanding the world. This can make it difficult to compare and
evaluate different scientific discoveries within different paradigms.

 Overemphasis on Revolution: Kuhn's work has been criticized for overemphasizing the
role of scientific revolutions in the history of science. This can lead to an under-
appreciation of the role of incremental progress and the cumulative nature of scientific
knowledge.

 Limited Scope: Kuhn's work focuses primarily on the natural sciences and may not be
applicable to other fields, such as the social sciences or humanities.

These limitations highlight the complex and sometimes unpredictable nature of scientific
progress, as outlined in Kuhn's "The Structure of Scientific Revolutions." While Kuhn's work has

6
had a significant impact on the philosophy of science, it is important to consider these limitations
when applying his ideas to specific scientific contexts.

Moreover, the author was unable to identify the specific causes of anomalies in normal science.
It would be beneficial if he could take into account how the nature and severity of anomalies are
impacted by variables like politics, the economy, and technology. We are all naturally resistant
to change, this also not given the necessary attention and holds true when there is a paradigm
shift. If this is the case, getting scientists to take the initiative and convert the entire scientific
community from the old paradigm to the new one will be extremely difficult, if not impossible.
Members of the scientific community who take the initiative are typically left with a tough task
(Solomon M, 2013: 45).

Another point is, cumulative improvement is opposed by Kuhn's presentation of traditional

science as a puzzle-solving endeavor in relation to the scientific revolution; his idea falls short of
providing an explanation for scientific advancement. Some academics, such as Imre Lakatos,
compare the Kuhnian scientific revolution to an irrational religious or mystical conversion.

According to Kuhn, paradigms exist before rules, and science can proceed even in the absence of
established norms or even a consensus justification of the paradigm, which has no true
philosophical foundation.

Conclusion

Anomalies act as catalysts for scientific change, prompting a reevaluation of existing theories
and paradigms.

- Accumulation of anomalies can lead to a crisis within the scientific community, challenging the
prevailing paradigm's ability to explain observed phenomena.

- Anomalies play a central role in driving paradigm shifts and the emergence of new scientific
frameworks.

- Scientific discovery is a social process, influenced by communal responses to anomalies and

the construction of new paradigms.

- Kuhn introduces the concept of incommensurability, suggesting that different scientific

paradigms are not directly comparable.

7
- Resistance within the scientific community often delays the acceptance of new paradigms, as
scientists attempt to accommodate anomalies within the existing framework.

References

Thomas S. Kuhn, (1970): The Structure of Scientific Revolutions, 2nd ed. Chicago, London:
University of Chicago Press Ltd.

Imre Lakatos, (1970): Falsification and the methodology of Scientific Research Programs,
Cambridge University Press. pp. 91-196

Solomon Melesse, (2013): Book Review of the Structure of Scientific Revolutions, Academic
Journal, Vol, 4(4), pp 41-48