📚 The Structure of Scientific Revolutions

I’ve just finished The Structure of Scientific Revolutions by Thomas Kuhn and noted:

1️⃣ Science doesn’t always move forward step by step. It might be chaotic. Sometimes progress happens in how we see the problem. Frequently news ideas come from nubies in the area

2️⃣ Paradigms matter. Scientists usually work inside an accepted model of how the world works.

3️⃣ Normal science is mostly solving puzzles. Scientists usually don’t question the whole system. They solve problems inside the existing paradigm in the very specific area.

4️⃣ Anomalies are inevitable and crucial. Experiments produce results that theories can’t explain and it’s totally ok.

5️⃣ One anomaly usually changes nothing. Scientists normally try to explain it, ignore it, or improve the existing theory.

6️⃣ Too many anomalies create a crisis. When the existing paradigm fails people start looking for something fundamentally different.

7️⃣ Revolutions change the rules. A new paradigm doesn’t just give a better answer. It can change what questions are considered important and how they should be answered.

8️⃣ Old and new paradigms can be hard to compare. They may use different concepts, assumptions and definitions.

9️⃣ New ideas are not accepted instantly. Evidence matters, but science is also a human process. Communities, education, reputation are important

🔟 After the revolution, the new paradigm becomes normal. The cycle starts again: normal science -> anomalies -> crisis -> revolution -> new normal science.

🤔The interesting part: when something doesn’t fit the model, maybe the problem isn’t the data. Maybe the model is wrong.

#book