This article analyzes the inapplicability of Thomas Kuhn’s theory of scientific revolutions to all fields of science, using examples from optics, evolutionary theory, mathematics, and biology, and points out the limitations of his paradigmatic theory and suggests a pluralist complement.

Introduction

The philosopher of science Thomas Samuel Kuhn explained how science progresses in his book ‘ The Structure of Scientific Revolutions ‘. While some disciplines, such as chemistry and geology, fit well with his theory of the structure of scientific progress, I believe that his theory is not an absolute generalization of the process of scientific development, as it is difficult to apply it precisely in some fields of science. In this article, I will discuss the limitations of the “paradigm” theory and its deficiencies through examples from such fields. First, we will use the examples of optics and evolutionary theory to show that multiple paradigms for interpreting a phenomenon can coexist. We will also use examples from mathematics and human biology to show that there are disciplines where the paradigm concept is difficult to apply. The goal of this discussion is to analyze the logical flaws in Kuhn’s theory of scientific revolutions and to provide an alternative.

Thesis statement

Before critically discussing Kuhn’s theory, let’s first briefly explain his theory of scientific revolutions. Contrary to the traditional view that science develops in a linear fashion, Kuhn believed that scientific progress is non-linear. To explain this, he introduced the concepts of “normal science” and “paradigms”. According to Kuhn, a paradigm is “a set of achievements recognized by scientists, a foundation upon which further research is built.” In other words, a paradigm is the fundamental foundation of what a particular scientific community believes to be true and proceeds to research. Normal science is based on this paradigm, and scientists try to explain phenomena in terms of the paradigm. However, Kuhn argued, a crisis occurs when a paradigm cannot explain a phenomenon, and a scientific revolution occurs in which a new paradigm that better explains the phenomenon replaces the old paradigm. The new paradigm is then built upon by normal science, and the process repeats itself to advance science.
In characterizing scientific revolutions, Kuhn argued that choosing a paradigm is akin to choosing between incompatible political philosophies. Because the two paradigms are usually incompatible, a paradigm shift, or scientific revolution, occurs. However, some examples from the history of science show that paradigm shifts don’t always happen.
The history of science about the nature of light can be seen as a counterexample to Kuhn’s claim that when two paradigms compete, one will always be overthrown. In the early 18th century, Isaac Newton argued in his book ‘ Opticks ‘ that light had the properties of a particle. At the same time, Robert Hooke and Christiaan Huygens argued that light has the properties of a wave, which means that the paradigm that light is a wave and the paradigm that light is a particle are compatible. The two paradigms coexisted for two centuries despite making incompatible claims about the same phenomenon. Without wave theory, the double slit experiments of Thomas Young and the work of James Clerk Maxwell in the 19th century would not have been possible. At the same time, without a particle theory of light, Einstein’s photon theory would not have been possible. Kuhn saw this situation as a period of confusion between the two paradigms, but it would be unfair to characterize the two centuries-long debate as a mere period of confusion. Rather, the two paradigms of particles and waves of light coexist and form a legitimate science. In the end, the argument that light has a duality of particles and waves was adopted as the new paradigm, and both paradigms proved to be valid arguments.
Evolutionary theory is another example of how multiple paradigms can coexist to explain a phenomenon. Darwin’s theory of natural selection is now accepted as orthodoxy, but at the time it was proposed, it did not explain the fundamental principles of natural selection. The principle of natural selection was unraveled in the 1940s with the discovery of the molecular structure of DNA. In the 80 years since Darwin wrote ‘ On the Origin of Species’ in 1859, several theories have competed, including Lamarckism, leapfrog evolution, and clove evolution. Although these theories had something in common in explaining the phenomenon of evolution, they offered different perspectives on the evolutionary process, so it is difficult to consider them as legitimate science in the same paradigm. This discussion of evolution and the nature of light shows that multiple paradigms can coexist for a single phenomenon.
To complement Kuhn’s claim that paradigms are incompatible after the Scientific Revolution, it is necessary to modify the claim of paradigm incommitment. A pluralist perspective is a good alternative: the relationship between paradigms is not extinct, but rather they can converge or diverge in ways that explain different phenomena. It’s also important to consider that both paradigms can coexist and still do good science. This expands the scope of the history of science that Kuhn’s paradigm theory can explain.
Mathematics is a discipline where Kuhn’s theory of scientific revolutions shows its limitations. Mathematics is a deductive process, meaning that it develops by building on existing theories to draw new conclusions. For example, defining multiplication based on the definition of addition, math draws new conclusions from existing premises. Therefore, logical connections are more important in math than entire paradigms. For this reason, defining a paradigm in math doesn’t mean much. This naturally makes Kuhn’s theory of scientific revolutions difficult to apply.
Human biology is another field where paradigms are difficult to define clearly. For example, before the invention of the microscope, the study of the human body was done from a macroscopic perspective, as humans were unable to understand the microstructure of organisms. After the invention of the microscope, cellular studies began, followed by molecular studies. Cellular and molecular studies are compatible with each other, and this is not a scientific revolution, but rather an evolution in research methods. The reason why it is difficult to find a clear paradigm in human biology is that the research methods are different and it is difficult to find a clear common ground.
In conclusion, the examples from math and biology show that there are fields where paradigms cannot be clearly applied. In these fields, Kuhn’s paradigmatic theory is best described as a cumulative progression rather than a forced application. Progress is made in a way that complements and improves upon existing theories.

Conclusion

We have seen the limitations of Kuhn’s theory through examples from optics, evolutionary theory, mathematics, and human biology. The optics and evolutionary theory examples highlighted the shortcomings of Kuhn’s argument that paradigms are incompatible and suggested a pluralistic view as an alternative. The examples of mathematics and human biology show that there are areas where Kuhn’s theory does not apply, and that this is due to the continuum of disciplinary development. Kuhn’s theory offers a fresh perspective on scientific progress, which is not only the result of critical thinking, but also of conformity to a system of theories. However, Kuhn’s theory is limited in that it does not explain the development of all scientific history. I think it is necessary to explore new methods and complement Kuhn’s theory in areas where it is not applicable.