In this blog post, we explore whether science is simply a process of accumulating knowledge or a continuous process of innovation through paradigm shifts.
Science was often understood as a process of simply accumulating facts. However, Thomas Kuhn went beyond this traditional view and presented an important perspective that science is not simply the discovery of truth, but rather the development of new paradigms and transitions. This perspective is considered a major turning point in modern philosophy of science. Scientific revolutions do not arise from the everyday process of scientific research, and innovation occurs when new theories emerge when existing paradigms no longer adequately explain phenomena. So why is paradigm change an essential element in the development of science?
Thomas Kuhn introduced the concept of “paradigm” in The Structure of Scientific Revolutions and attempted a new approach to the history of science. Kuhn defined a “paradigm” as “beliefs, values, and techniques shared by members of a scientific community,” and argued that the development of science is achieved through the replacement of these paradigms. Science during the stable maintenance of a paradigm is called “normal science,” and the process of paradigm transition is called a “scientific revolution.”
Koon’s argument starts from the recognition that the development of science is not achieved through simple accumulation. While studying the history of science, he found it difficult to answer questions such as “When was oxygen discovered?” or “Who first discovered the law of conservation of energy?” It was also difficult to distinguish the scientific elements that originated from past observations and beliefs from those that were dismissed by previous generations of scientists as errors or superstitions. Koon’s problem is that it is unreasonable to think that science has developed simply by accumulating facts.
This claim may conflict with the general perception that science has developed by continuously discovering objective facts. We learned from textbooks, scientists proposed new theories, and knowledge expanded through this. This method of education makes us believe that science has developed through accumulation. However, as we can see from the history of science, science did not develop simply through the accumulation of facts, just as there were no such experiments before the law of conservation of mass was announced.
Kuhn introduced the concept of paradigm, arguing that the research in science has mainly been conducted in the direction of confirming and reinforcing existing paradigms. This is a convincing argument, as research is mainly conducted to verify a particular theory or to find other conditions under which the theory is established. For example, after Newton’s theory of gravity was published, scientists designed experiments in various situations based on the theory and expanded its laws. Such research eventually moves in the direction of solidifying the paradigm, suggesting that scientific research is pursuing stable development rather than innovation.
However, science does not always develop from the perspective that a paradigm is always true. Kuhn explains that when researchers encounter experimental results that cannot be explained by the existing paradigm, they often initially think that they have made a mistake or error and re-examine their research. As such research is repeated and problems that cannot be solved by the existing paradigm gradually accumulate, the need for a new paradigm arises and a scientific revolution occurs. This is ultimately a process of making new scientific progress, but the intention of the initial research was still rooted in the existing paradigm. From this perspective, Kuhn’s argument gains persuasiveness.
Kuhn’s most controversial argument is that a new paradigm completely replaces the existing paradigm. However, this argument can be understood as a process in which the existing paradigm is supplemented or expanded by a new paradigm. For example, Newtonian mechanics is still valid in classical mechanics, but it is insufficient to explain the microscopic world or high-speed motion, as is the case with quantum mechanics or the theory of relativity. In such situations, a new theory emerges and supplements or replaces the existing paradigm. If we look at the paradigm shift as a whole rather than in parts, we see that the past and present paradigms coexist.
Kuhn’s paradigm theory can be applied not only to science but also to society, philosophy, and art. Social transformation, changes in philosophical thinking, and changes in artistic trends all reflect changes in the paradigm of the times. For example, during the Renaissance, developments in art and science made a transition beyond the existing medieval paradigm. However, the reason Kun chose science is that the development of science is clearly evident in the emergence of new paradigms that can explain more phenomena than other ideas. Science can claim progress because each new paradigm has been more objective and able to explain more phenomena than the previous one.
A typical example of a paradigm shift in modern science is the birth of quantum mechanics. Newtonian mechanics, the main paradigm of physics for centuries, was replaced by a new paradigm called quantum mechanics in the early 20th century, which enabled the explanation of phenomena in the microscopic world that could not be explained by Newtonian mechanics. This was not just a development of a theory, but required a complete shift in thinking, and there was much debate and opposition among scientists. However, quantum mechanics eventually became the center of modern physics, and this is considered a classic example of a paradigm shift as described by Kuhn. This example shows how important paradigm shifts are in the development of science.
