Koganti Rikky Roy - The Structure of Scientific Revolutions The concept of scientific consensus is the view of knowledge and

scientific discovery that Thomas Kuhn adopts throughout this book. He proposed that scientific consensus worked in the form of "paradigms". For Kuhn, scientific paradigms include, "law, theory, application, and instrumentation together... [and] provide models from which spring particular coherent traditions of scientific research." [II, Page 10] The scientific community acts as a concensus group from which an amalgamation of theories springs forth. The theories that are inceasingly professional acknowledged as 'true' become the paradigms that each generation adheres to. In other words, scientific consensus is at the root of scientific discovery. Only through majority consent can a paradigm be weeded out from a meshed up jungle of paradigms. It is a survival of the fittest to see which paradigm is adopted as truth, as Kuhn says. He uses the process of natural selection via evolution to illustrate the process of choice between conflicting paradigms. He says that science is advanced through "conflict within the scientific community of the fittest way to practice science." [XIII, Page 172] Throughout the book, Kuhn clearly describes three stages to this view of scientific discovery. First is the pre-paradigm phase, where there are various schools of thoughts vying for support for their position but most do not have the sufficient explanations or evidence to back up their theories and gain preeminence. Paradigms are still vague, which allows for new observations to be easily incorporated into the boundaries of the paradigm since the paradigm still has an indefinite form where it is hard to differentiate between acceptable and unacceptable results. Paradigms become more and more clearly structured as observations are utilized to shape the set of rules for a paradigm. Second is the phase of 'normal-science', where the majority of scientists have acknowledged a particular paradigm as the most successful in a certain field. In this phase, research is divided up into 3 broad areas, "determination of significant facts, matching of facts with theory, and articulation of theory." [III, Page 34] In the first area, researchers focus on, and attempt to increase the accuracy and scope of important concepts within the paradigm. In the second area, researchers try to focus on "facts that can be compared directly with predictions from the paradigmatic theory." [III, Page 26] They try to bring fact and theory (in the paradigm) into closer and closer agreement. The third area consists of "empirical work undertaken to articulate the paradigm theory." [III, Page 27] Such work is made in an effort to produce new information and a more precise paradigm. Discovery of facts that do not fit into the paradigm view are not expected and considered 'failures'. These anamolies are usually never published as it is only the proliferation of succesful studies that ensures the prosperity of the reigning paradigm.

Third is the "revolutionary science" phase where there is an accumulation of many significant anomalies that begin to challenge the reigning paradigm view. This period is also dubbed 'extraordinary science' by Kuhn. Researchers uncover certain facts that cannot be fitting within the boundaries of the paradigm. They remain irreconciliable with the theories of the reigning paradigm and result in a "period of pronounced professional insecurity" [VIII, Page 83] due to the failure to assimilate the anomalies into the reigning paradigm. There is a 'crisis' that can only be resolved through a choice between the existing paradigm and new ones that have been sought out. When new paradigms are being sought out, we have gone back the to pre-paradigm phase. A 'paradigm shift' occurs (bringing us now to the second 'normal-science' phase), after which the prior anomalies now result in the discovery of a new fact. Thus, scientific discovery is made through a cycle of paradigm shifts rather than a linear progression towards truth. Kuhn's model of scientific discovery also emphasizes that scientific consensus behind the paradigm shift never truly depended on objective facts but rather more social and personal aspects of the time. He cited many historial examples, like the Copernican Theory and Lavoisier's deducing the common properties of metals, to show that "a decision of that kind can only be made on faith." [XII, Page 158] The 3 phrases of scientific discovery is remarkably similar to the political system in many a country. The first phase is characterized by many political parties and invidiuals vying for power of governance of their country. It would be the period before elections where the people of the country (in place of the scientific community) try to come to a consensus as to who their leader will be. Once this decision is made, we enter the normal-science era - the period of ruling for the president till the next elections. Once again, this period is similar to the normal science phase in that information that will hurt the reputation and power of the president is hidden or censored from the public while information that will heighten his perceived aptitude is disclosed and proliferated in the media. Aspects that would hurt the reputation of political leaders like corruption and other scandals remain in the shadows. However, the difference here is that the president's power might not be absolute in that country. A reigning paradigm is the only paradigm that everyone subscribes too. There is no other paradigm of power in that field. However, other presidential candidates will always exist. Political opponents and rivals who will try to undermine the current president's or ruling party's power till the next elections, via exposing abovementioned scandals and other 'black marks'. If there is no accumulation of such 'black marks', the current president would probably be reelected in the next election, but more often than not, there is indeed such an accumulation. Thus, we enter the third phase, a personal (paradigm) shift, where a new

president is elected. And more importantly, this is also a decision that is based not on pure logic and facts but personal and social sentiments. However, personal shifts in the political system will occur at a much more frequent rate than paradigm shifts due to the existence of other political rivals. A democracy might not represent Kuhn's method of scientific discovery since there are too many political powers in a democratic country, while there should only be 1 major paradigm in a field. A totalitarian government structure in this metaphor could be more meaningful since the government has absolute power. Hence, revolutions (personal shifts) are much rarer in a country's history. However, revolutions in the end usually lead to a democratic government being implemented. In the case of paradigm shifts, it is a cycle of shifts leading to scientific progress whereas revolutions are usually one-off events in a country's history. Thus, I feel that using either a democratic or totalitarian structure as a metaphor for the method of scientific discover has flaws. But the important issue is whether progress is achieved in the political system like how a paradigm shift leads to advancement in scientific discovery. In this case, a revolution would be a more appropriate metaphor since definite progress is made.