Most models of scientific change are based on new data generated by scientific experiments. Kuhn argued that only after the accumulation of many “significant” anomalies would the scientific consensus enter a “crisis” phase. At this point, new theories would be sought, and eventually a paradigm would triumph over the old – a series of paradigm shifts and not linear progress towards truth. Kuhn`s model also more clearly emphasized the social and personal aspects of theory change and showed, using historical examples, that scientific consensus was never really a matter of pure logic or pure facts. [17] However, these periods of “normal” and “crisis” science are not mutually exclusive. Research shows that these are different types of practice, more than different historical periods. .

Be Sociable, Share!