Is science a process of accumulation or a series of innovations driven by paradigm shifts?

Thomas Kuhn argued that scientific progress is not simply the accumulation of knowledge, but rather paradigm shifts. New paradigms complement or replace existing theories, and similar shifts occur not only in science, but also in many other fields, such as society and the arts.

 

Science used to be understood as a process of accumulating facts, but Thomas Kuhn went beyond this traditional view and proposed an important perspective that science is not simply the discovery of truth, but rather its development through the emergence and transition of new paradigms. This perspective is considered a major turning point, especially in modern philosophy of science. Scientific revolutions do not emerge from the routine course of scientific research, but rather from the emergence of new theories when existing paradigms no longer adequately explain phenomena. So why are paradigm shifts an essential element in the development of science?
In The Structure of Scientific Revolutions, Thomas Kuhn introduced the concept of “paradigm” to take a new approach to the history of science. Kuhn defined a paradigm as “a set of beliefs, values, and techniques shared by members of a society of scientists” and argued that scientific progress is driven by the replacement of paradigms. Science when a paradigm remains stable is called “normal science,” and the process of paradigm shifts is called a “scientific revolution.
Kuhn’s argument stems from the recognition that the progress of science does not consist of the simple accumulation of facts. In his studies of the history of science, he found it difficult to answer questions such as “When was oxygen discovered?” or “Who was the first to discover the law of conservation of energy?” It was also difficult to distinguish between scientific elements that stemmed from past observations and beliefs from those that earlier scientists dismissed as error or superstition. Kuhn’s problem was that science cannot be viewed as a simple accumulation of facts.
This may conflict with the common perception that science has progressed through a series of objective discoveries. We learn from textbooks, scientists come up with new theories, and knowledge is expanded. This way of teaching leads us to believe that science has progressed by accumulation. But in the history of science, science has not progressed by the mere accumulation of facts, just as no such experiment existed before the publication of the law of conservation of mass.
Kuhn introduced the concept of paradigms, arguing that research in science was primarily directed toward confirming and strengthening existing paradigms. This is a compelling argument because once a theory is published, research is often directed toward validating it or finding other conditions under which it holds. For example, after Newton’s theory of gravity was published, scientists built on it, designing experiments and extending its laws in a variety of situations. Research like this eventually tends to solidify paradigms, suggesting that scientific research seeks to stabilize rather than innovate.
However, science doesn’t always progress in terms of paradigms being the truth. Kuhn explains that when researchers encounter experimental results that cannot be explained by existing paradigms, they often initially think that they have made a mistake or error and revisit their research. As these studies are repeated, the problems that cannot be solved by the existing paradigm gradually accumulate until the need for a new paradigm arises and a scientific revolution occurs. This is the process that eventually leads to new scientific advances, but the intent of the initial research was still rooted in the existing paradigm. This is where Kuhn’s argument becomes compelling.
Kuhn’s most controversial claim is that a new paradigm completely replaces an existing paradigm, but it can also be understood more deeply as a process in which an existing paradigm is complemented or extended by a new one. For example, Newtonian mechanics is still valid in classical mechanics, but like quantum mechanics and relativity, it lacks explanatory power in the microscopic world or in situations of high-speed motion. In these situations, new theories emerge to complement or replace the old paradigm. If we view paradigm shifts holistically, rather than piecemeal, we witness the coexistence of past and present paradigms.
Kuhn’s paradigm theory can be applied not only to science, but also to society, philosophy, and art. Social transformations, shifts in philosophical thought, and changes in artistic schools of thought all reflect shifts in the paradigms of the times. For example, during the Renaissance, developments in art and science marked a shift beyond the existing medieval paradigm. But Kuhn chose science because the development of science is clearly marked by the emergence of new paradigms that can explain more phenomena than other schools of thought. Science can claim progress because each time a new paradigm emerged, it was more objective and able to explain more phenomena than the previous one.
A prime example of a paradigm shift in modern science is the birth of quantum mechanics. Newtonian mechanics of classical physics had been the dominant paradigm in physics for centuries, but in the early 20th century, a new paradigm called quantum mechanics emerged, which was able to explain phenomena in the microscopic world that could not be explained by classical Newtonian mechanics. This was not just an advancement in theory, but a completely new way of thinking, and there was much debate and backlash among scientists. Eventually, however, quantum mechanics became central to modern physics, and is considered a classic example of Kuhn’s paradigm shift. This example illustrates the important role paradigm shifts play in scientific progress.