The Dynamics of Scientific Knowledge - Mapping Scientific Frontiers: The Quest for Knowledge Visualization - page 7

As more and more anomalies build up, scientists begin to examine basic assump-
tions that have been taken for granted. This re-examination marks a period of crises.
To resolve such crises, radically new theories with greater explanatory power may
replace the current paradigms that are in trouble. This type of replacement is often
view-changing in nature. They are often revolutionary and transformative. As the
new paradigm is accepted by the scientific community, science enters another period
of normal science. Scientific revolutions, as Kuhn claimed, are an integral part of
science and science progresses through such revolutionary changes. Although the
most common perception of the paradigm shift theory implies the rarity and severity
of such change, such view-changing events are much more commonly found at
almost all levels of science, from topics, fields of study, to disciplines.
Kuhn characterized the structure of scientific revolutions in terms of the
dynamics of competing scientific paradigms. His theory provides deep insights into
the mechanisms that operate at macroscopic levels and offers ways to explain the
history of science in terms of the tension between radical changes and incremental
extensions. The revolutionary transformation of science from one paradigm to
another - a paradigm shift - is one of the most widely known concepts not only in
scientific communities but also to the general public. The Copernican revolution is
a classic example of a paradigm shift. It marked the change from the geo-centric
to the solar-centric view of our solar system. Another classic example is Einstein's
general relativity, which took over the authoritative place of Newtonian mechanics
and became the new predominant paradigm in physics.
Stephen Toulmin (1922-2009), a British philosopher of science, suggested a
“Darwinian” model of scientific disciplines: the more disciplines there are in which
a given theory is applicable, the more likely the theory will survive. A similar point
is made by a recent study of the value of ideas in a quite different context Kornish
and Ulrich ( 2011 ). It found that more valuable ideas tend to connect many different
topics.
Although Kuhn's theory has been broadly received, philosophers criticized it in
several ways. In particular, the notion of incommensurability between competing
paradigms was heavily criticized. Incommensurability refers to the communicative
barrier between different paradigms; it can be taken as a challenge to the possibility
of a rational evaluation of competing paradigms using external standards. If that was
the case, the argument may lead to the irrationality of science.
Margaret Masterman ( 1970 ) examined Kuhn's discussion of the concept of
paradigms and found that Kuhn's definitions of a paradigm can be separated into
three categories:
1. Metaphysical paradigms, in which the crucial cognitive event is a new way of
seeing, a myth, a metaphysical speculation
2. Sociological paradigms, in which the event is a universally recognized scientific
achievement
3. Artifact or construct paradigms, in which the paradigm supplies a set of tools
or instrumentation, a means for conducting research on a particular problem, a
problem-solving device.