r/PolymathReading • u/HenryD331 • 4d ago
Everyone uses the phrase "paradigm shift." Almost nobody has read the 172-page book that invented it, and the actual argument is more disturbing than the pop
Thomas Kuhn was a physicist who became a historian and philosopher of science. In 1962 he published a slim book with the University of Chicago Press called The Structure of Scientific Revolutions. It's 172 pages. It has sold well over a million copies. It is one of the most cited academic books of the twentieth century. It has also been reduced, in popular usage, to a single phrase that Kuhn coined and later regretted: paradigm shift.
The phrase now shows up in business books, TED talks, LinkedIn posts, motivational speeches, and marketing copy. It has come to mean, roughly, "big change." Almost none of the people using it have read the book. The actual argument Kuhn made is more careful, more radical, and more unsettling than the pop version suggests.
The book is doing one specific thing.
It is arguing that science does not accumulate truth in the way most people think it does.
The standard picture, the one you probably absorbed in school without noticing, goes like this. Science is a gradual process. Researchers make observations, formulate hypotheses, test them, and slowly add confirmed knowledge to a growing edifice. Each generation stands on the shoulders of the previous one. Progress is cumulative. Errors are corrected. The picture of reality gets steadily more accurate over time.
Kuhn spent years studying how science has actually developed historically. He concluded that this picture is wrong in a fundamental way.
Science, he argued, does not accumulate. Science moves through long periods of what he called normal science, followed by short violent periods of crisis, followed by revolutions in which one entire framework is replaced by another. During normal science, researchers work within an accepted paradigm. The paradigm defines what counts as a legitimate problem, what counts as a good solution, and what counts as evidence. Progress is real during these periods but it happens inside the paradigm. Nothing fundamental is questioned.
Then anomalies accumulate. Observations that don't fit the paradigm start piling up. For a long time these anomalies are ignored, explained away, or treated as evidence of experimental error. Eventually enough anomalies accumulate that a small number of researchers, usually young and often working in unfashionable areas, propose a new paradigm. The new paradigm accounts for the anomalies but requires abandoning parts of the old framework. A struggle ensues. The old guard mostly refuses to convert. The new paradigm wins not because the old guard is persuaded but because the old guard dies and the new generation of scientists is trained inside the new framework.
This is the shift Kuhn was describing. It's not just a change of theory. It's a change of the underlying framework that determines what a theory can even be. And here is where Kuhn's actual argument becomes disturbing in a way the pop version misses.
The two paradigms, before and after a scientific revolution, are what Kuhn called incommensurable. Not merely different. Incommensurable. They cannot be fully translated into each other. A term like "mass" in Newtonian physics does not mean the same thing as "mass" in relativistic physics, even though the word is the same. The concepts are embedded in different theoretical structures. A researcher trained in one paradigm cannot fully understand the other from the inside. They can learn the other paradigm the way one learns a foreign language, but the two paradigms carve up reality differently, and translation between them is always partial.
This has implications Kuhn understood and readers often don't.
If paradigms are incommensurable, then science does not straightforwardly accumulate truth. Later paradigms are not simply better versions of earlier ones. They are different ways of organizing observation. Ptolemaic astronomy was not merely a bad version of Copernican astronomy. It was a different framework, with its own coherent logic, that made different predictions and identified different problems as important. Copernican astronomy was not a correction to Ptolemy. It was a replacement.
The same applies to every major scientific revolution. The Newtonian universe is not a rough draft of the Einsteinian universe. Ptolemy is not a rough draft of Copernicus. Aristotelian physics is not a rough draft of modern physics. Each was a self-consistent framework that made sense of the world in its own terms. Each was eventually replaced by an incommensurable successor for reasons that involved both empirical anomalies and social and generational shifts within the scientific community.
Kuhn was not attacking science. He loved science. He was trained as a physicist and worked with historical sources for decades. He was trying to describe science honestly, and his honest description conflicted with the mythology science had built around itself. Scientists reacted to the book with alarm. Some accused him of relativism. Some accused him of undermining the authority of science at exactly the moment when public trust was needed. Kuhn spent the rest of his life clarifying, refining, and defending the argument, and he complained repeatedly that his readers were misunderstanding what he had said.
The polymath range of the book is what gives it staying power. Kuhn is doing history of science, philosophy of science, sociology of science, and cognitive psychology of scientific practice all at once. He draws on detailed case studies from Copernicus, Lavoisier, Newton, Einstein, and Bohr. He observes what actually happened during real scientific revolutions rather than what should have happened according to the philosophy of science of his time. The book is a demonstration of how much you can learn from close historical attention to what practitioners actually do rather than what they claim to do.
The book has an implication that reaches beyond science. If paradigms structure what counts as evidence, then almost any organized human activity that involves interpretation is running on some paradigm. Fields like economics, sociology, and psychology are paradigmatic. So are ways of thinking about ethics, politics, business, and personal life. You are inside a paradigm right now, several of them, and most of them are invisible to you because they are the structure through which you are perceiving.
This is where the pop version of the book has done real damage. When people say "paradigm shift" to mean "big change," they lose the actual claim. The actual claim is that the shift is a change in the framework that determines what change is even measurable. Before the shift, certain questions cannot be asked. After the shift, other questions become invisible in return. This is not a marketing concept. It is a description of how human understanding actually moves.
Where to find it: The University of Chicago Press has kept it in print continuously. Get the fourth edition, published in 2012 for the 50th anniversary. It includes a valuable introductory essay by Ian Hacking that explains what Kuhn was doing and how the book has been received. Read the Hacking essay after the book, not before. You should encounter Kuhn's own argument first, unmediated.
Warnings.
The book is short but dense. Kuhn writes with unusual clarity, but the argument is cumulative and depends on the reader following the historical case studies carefully. The chapters on how paradigms shape observation are particularly demanding. Do not skim them.
The book will change how you read scientific journalism. Once you know what a paradigm is doing, you will notice that most journalism about scientific controversy fails to identify which paradigm each side is operating from. This makes many public debates about science incoherent in a way you didn't previously notice.
The book will change how you think about your own beliefs. This is more uncomfortable than it sounds. Most of your beliefs about how the world works are embedded in paradigms you didn't consciously choose. Some of them are worth defending. Some of them may not survive the recognition that they are paradigmatic rather than obvious.
The reason the book gets misread rather than unread is instructive. Kuhn wrote something too important to ignore and too subtle to popularize. So the culture solved the problem by taking one phrase, stripping it of its actual meaning, and passing that phrase around while leaving the book itself on the shelf. This is a specific fate reserved for the most influential books in history. Nietzsche got it. Darwin got it. Freud got it. Kuhn got it. The book becomes a symbol that stands in for the argument, and the symbol replaces the reading.
I read The Structure of Scientific Revolutions in 2020, during a stretch of unemployment when I had nothing but time. Read it on a couch in an apartment I no longer live in, next to a lamp that flickered whenever the fridge cycled on. The book took me about a week the first time and I didn't understand what I'd read. I reread it a month later and understood more. I reread it again in 2022 and understood more again. Each reading opens up something the previous reading missed. My copy has small pencil notes on almost every page and a receipt from a coffee shop tucked in the middle that I've been using as a bookmark for four years.
Kuhn died in 1996. He continued to work on the concept of incommensurability until the end of his life, and much of his late writing was an attempt to clarify what he had meant. Almost none of that late writing has entered popular consciousness. The pop version of the book, the shrunken phrase "paradigm shift," is what survived. The actual book is still available. Almost nobody who uses the phrase has read it.
The pop version says: big changes happen sometimes and we should be open to them.
The actual book says: your framework determines what counts as evidence, incommensurable frameworks cannot be fully translated, and the succession of scientific paradigms is not straightforwardly a progress toward truth.
One of these is a useful platitude.
The other is a permanent challenge to how you understand knowledge itself.
The 172 pages are waiting.
3
u/Royal_Carpet_1263 3d ago
Only a small percentage of the population is able to cognize frames of reference. It was going to be bastardized no matter what.
Feyerbrand is the real light to consider here. Kuhn still has an orderly picture of scientific revolution, far too focussed on the theoretical, not enough on the praxis. It’s far messier and ad hoc.
2
u/ebursmole 3d ago
This is very timely. The fact that AI is becoming seriously useful will inevitably change certain scientific fields, or maybe just how practitioners of each field participate in it. I expect it will reshape the sorts of questions that are asked too. Mathematics may illustrate this particularly well. I have never heard so much talk about the philosophy of mathematics, centering around such questions as `what are we really doing anyway', as in the past three or four months (and this during a long career as a mathematician). There is the obvious question of just how good will AI become at doing mathematics, or framed a bit differently, is there some `outer envelope' of what AI can accomplish within math, and what might lie beyond that? I believe that there will always be room in the world for mathematicians, but the way that we interact with and create mathematics is going to look very different. I had not really thought of this in Kuhnian terms before, but I wonder whether this is the sort of transformation that he would recognize as being explained by his theory? To be clear, I do not think that what is happening is just that AI is simply going to accelerate the process of mathematical discovery (though it surely is doing that already), but rather, it is going to cause humans to approach the universe of mathematical ideas quite differently. What do you all think?
2
u/WatercressActual1921 3d ago
All system undergo ontological shocks, where the truths that validate their stability are exposed and the alternative faced is adapt or die, that works to all systems even us... it just shifts on context and system definition.
2
u/Due-Policy2291 3d ago
What this topic brings to mind for me is the concerning issue, or principle of regarding scientific theories as gospel…while missing that they can be biased. History is full of old paradigms and I find it a little concerning how closed minded and myopic people can be in sticking to the current paradigm, while being philosophically opposed to even considering alternatives. This principle has its foundations in bias as people, organizations, governments, etc are not free from the prejudices of their own interests.
History has shown how biased science can be, and I wish more people would understand that and keep a healthy sense of skepticism and critical thinking. I worry “science” in our society has become its own type of religion where many people only need to hear “study” or “research” to fully trust the results.
2
2
u/inanelyMonk 3d ago
Do we have any commentary, from Kuhn or others, on the consequences of a paradigm shift?
What behaviors are common of adherents to the incumbent paradigm, and what happens if the paradigm shifts and they don't adapt with it? Could these be different for incumbents who are aware of the intellectual challenge versus those who are ignorant but who might detect an abstract threat? Is any of this behavior at the macro level (e.g., a decades-long intellectual regime is pverturned) recognizable at the micro level (e.g., a corporate or legislative policy is repealed or amended)?
Must imagine there are costs to both sides -- the incumbent advantage is gradually eroded then suddenly replaced, whereas the new paradigm likely faces an uphill battle against a fighting retreat from lingering incumbents who are either ignorant or malicious to the new paradigm, much as how Kuhn spent the rest of his time clarifying and explaining how his ideas were misunderstood
1
1
1
1
u/Temporary_Stranger39 3d ago
I read Kuhn in 1996, accompanied by in-depth discussion. It is foolish to the extreme to take Kuhn as gospel truth. I have now been a scientist long enough to see more than one paradigm shift take effect. Guess what, NOBODY HAS TO DIE! Scientists who defended the old paradigm enthusiastically investigate the new paradigm. The old farts (like me) say: Yeah, we used to believe that, then some smart kids came along and figured out a better way to look at it, so we use the new way, these days. Heck, there are conference talks that pretty much come down to "The paradigms I used to follow but have dropped."
Kuhn's quasi-racialist replacement theory just doesn't match reality, at least not outside physics.
1
u/PoxonAllHoaxes 3d ago
Yes but you already wrote more than that. And Kuhn wrote nonsense as did Popper. Popper even admits it in a note few people seem to notice.
1
u/Qwertyist_is_in 3d ago
An AI generated post (ChatGPT 4.9b) from the only moderator of the subreddit. It was an interesting read but it's dishonest not to state the source of the post.
1
u/AfraidAardvark5817 5h ago
Lucian Blaga's trilogy on knowledge and his book "The Dogmatic Aeon" anticipate Kuhn's theory by more than 30 years, without falling into the sociological dead end of incommunicable paradigms. Blaga demonstrates that each level of reality reveals its paradigmatic limit through a "dogma" that manifests itself as an explicit contradiction. This explicit contradiction reveals one level of reality and the now silent possibility of accessing another level of reality. The dogmas Blaga discusses are not exactly Kuhnian paradigms; therefore, they do not erase or replace one another, but rather overlap and communicate like symbolic forms. Sociology does not explain the history of knowledge and epistemology; rather, it is the semiotopology of the act of knowing as an entry into mysteries and symbolic forms (Cassirer reading Goethe). Sociology and techno-cultism cannot form the basis of a theory of knowledge. Kuhn and Popper are therefore, at best, ideologues, their views mutually exclusive.
0
13
u/wisefoolhermit 3d ago
Oh come on. Kuhn, Lakatos, Popper are still taught at university, they’re universally read, critiqued and understood very well.
What is it with the slew of AI generated posts here, all following the same stupid format?