The Nature and Necessity of Scientific Revolution

Almost everything that distinguishes the modern world

from earlier centuries attributable to Science, which achieve its most

spectacular triumphs in the seventeeth century.

Bertrand Russell

I. Introduction

How Sciences progresses? What are scientific revolutions and what are their
functions in scientific development? Why should a change of paradigm be called
revolution? In the face of the vast and essential differences between political and
scientific development, what parallelism can justify the metaphor that finds
revolution in both? These are the questions in the article that it needs a
comprehensive and concise explanation to understand the nature and necessity of
scientific revolutions.

In this paper Thomas Kuhn used the word paradigm. Kuhn identifies two
essential characteristics of paradigm: scientific achievements that attract an
enduring group of adherents away from competing modes of scientific activity, and
they are sufficiently open ended to leave all sorts of problems for redefined group of
practitioners to resolve. The paradigm is shared goal, a program of action. They are
major theories of Science, major conceptual schemes, basic concepts on which
Science is based, e.g. corpuscular optics or wave optics or Corpernican astronomy.
Why paradigm is used in the study? It is mainly prepares a student for membership
in a particular scientific community with which he will later practice. According to
Kuhn Theories are not important enough to classed as paradigm because many
theories are expounded in scientific journals.

In this article “The Structure of Scientific Revolution” by Thomas Kuhn He

discussed the Nature and necessity of scientific revolutions he stressed out the
difference between scientific revolution and political revolution. Both of these
contributed much in the development of Science as well as political development.
Kuhn point out logical positivism in relation to normal science and revolutionary
science. The last part of this paper which Kuhn gave emphasis on revolution and
relativism. Is relativistic or revolutionist has something to do with the development
of scientific theory?

II. Scientific revolution vs. political revolutions

 Scientific revolution, according to Thomas Kuhn, is a shift in professional
commitments to shared assumptions that takes place when an anomaly undermines
the basic tenets of the current scientific practice. These shifts are the “tradition-
shattering complements to the tradition-bound activity of normal science”. These
paradigms requirethe reconstruction of prior assumptions and the re-evaluation of
prior facts that are difficult and time consuming.

From the normal practice in the science community in which one research
should comply or based its assumption with established scientific norms (theories,
laws, accepted facts, etc.) and of which a research, before it will be accepted as a
general facts, should be re-conducted by other independent scientists following the
same methodology, or replicated, and should have the same or similar results
before it can be universally accepted. Here comes the shift of which an observation
could be constructed with a new model or prediction and then undergo field of
research. The result is accepted by professionals of the same field.

Because of the difficulty of established norms in science, the paradigms can

now determine normal science without the intervention of observable rules or
shared assumptions. Paradigms then transform a group into a profession or a
discipline.

The paradigm shifts did not just go easily. It encountered many criticism and
resistance in the scientific community especially from the traditionalist. However,
the more precise and far-reaching the paradigm is, the more sensitive it is to
detecting anomaly and inducing change.
By resisting change, a paradigm guarantees that anomalies that lead to paradigm
change will penetrate existing knowledge to the core.

Example in the case of new discoveries, a change in existing theory that

results in the invention of a new theory is also brought about by the awareness of
anomaly. The emergence of a new theory is generated by the persistent failure of
the puzzle of normal science to be solved as they should.

Take for example the discovery in which a can be run using closed circuit
brain that used energy principles rather than chemistry by the use of water and
with electricity as start-up source of energy. In chemistry, the law of matter states
that it can be conserved, or all materials inputted should be equal to the resulting
materials outputted. In this invention, water undergoes a cycle of which energy is
released that turns the engine on. But before it can be release energy, electricity
from AD/CD battery or electric current from the outlets could start-up the
movement of molecules. A normally accepted principle is that water could be split
into hydrogen and oxygen atoms by electrolysis. The splitting will release energy
that could be used in turning engines like turbines. So there should be a continuous
supply of electricity. In this invention however, electricity is not used continuously
but only as start-up for let’s say, 5-10 minutes. From the resulting energy released a
portion of it is plowed back to the brain. And since there is already an activity, it
needs only 25-35 percent of its energy requirement in order to continuous release
of energy. There is now anomaly in the accepted scientific principles of conservation
of energy and matter. Though it takes time because of counter-instances that
create tension, the invention was accepted and supported by those who are in the
same field of profession. This is one concrete example on the application of
scientific revolution.

According to this paper of Thomas Kuhn Political revolutions are inaugurated

by a growing sense, often restricted to a segment of the political community, that
existing institutions have ceased adequately to meet the problem posed by an
environment that they have in part created.