Thomas Kuhn – *The Structure of Scientific Revolutions* (1962)
This text is a preview of History of the Reception of Hegel, volume II, to be published in 2026 by Reflexivity Press.
The Book That Changed Everything
Thomas S. Kuhn (1922-1996), an American physicist and historian of science, published a slim book in 1962 that revolutionized philosophy of science: The Structure of Scientific Revolutions. The term “paradigm shift” entered everyday language; the book sold millions of copies.
Kuhn’s starting point was a simple observation: the actual history of science looks quite different from what the logical empiricists (and Popper) claimed. Science does not develop through continuous accumulation of knowledge – hypothesis, testing, confirmation or refutation, new hypothesis. It develops through ruptures, crises, revolutions.
The Concept of Paradigm
Kuhn’s key term is “paradigm” – a word he himself later regretted, because it became so ambiguous. In Structure he uses it in at least two senses:
As “exemplar”: a concrete scientific work that serves as a model – Newton’s Principia, Darwin’s Origin of Species, Einstein’s theory of relativity.
As “disciplinary matrix”: the entire worldview of a scientific community – its basic assumptions, methods, values, model problems.
Normal Science, Anomalies, Crisis, Revolution
Kuhn distinguishes several phases:
Normal science: Most of the time, scientists work within a paradigm. They solve “puzzles” – problems they know to be solvable, because the paradigm provides the methods of solution.
Anomalies: Sometimes scientists encounter problems that cannot be solved. At first they are ignored or explained away. But when they accumulate, unease sets in.
Crisis: At some point the unease grows so large that the paradigm itself is called into question. Scientists begin to discuss foundations – something that does not happen in normal science.
Revolution: Finally a new paradigm emerges that solves the anomalies – but also changes the basic concepts. Scientists see the world differently.
The Incommensurability Thesis – and Its Problems
Kuhn’s most provocative thesis is “incommensurability”: different paradigms are said to be incomparable. There is supposedly no neutral standpoint from which to decide which paradigm is “better.”
This sounds relativistic – and Kuhn was often understood that way. If paradigms are incommensurable, then science is not a rational search for truth but a sociological phenomenon: scientists believe what their community believes.
Kuhn himself resisted this interpretation. He insisted that science makes progress. But he could not convincingly explain what this progress consists in, if paradigms are incomparable.
The Resolution: Paradigm Shift as Expansion of the Disjunction
A Hegelian-inspired analysis shows that Kuhn’s “incommensurability” can be resolved without falling back into naive rationalism.
The key lies in the disjunctive syllogism: “If all other possibilities are excluded, then the remaining alternative must be the solution.” But this inference can fail – not because the logic is wrong, but because we have framed the alternatives too narrowly.
Before Einstein: “Space and time are either absolute or relative (to what?).” This seemed to be a complete disjunction – tertium non datur. But Einstein discovered a third possibility: space and time are relative to each other, forming a four-dimensional continuum.
Before quantum mechanics: “Light is either a wave or a particle.” This too seemed complete. But quantum mechanics showed that light exhibits both aspects, depending on the measurement setup. The disjunction had been framed incorrectly.
The point: paradigm shifts are often nothing other than expansions of the disjunction. The disjunctive syllogism does not fail – we had simply framed the alternatives too narrowly. What appears as “incommensurability” is the discovery of a new possibility that was not visible within the old paradigm.
This explains why paradigm shifts feel “revolutionary” (the whole framing of the question changes) yet remain rational (the new possibilities were always already there – we simply had not seen them).
The Three Patterns of Cognitive Progress
Scientific progress does not follow a single pattern but shows three distinct structures:
Pattern A: Systematic integration of perspectives. Different researchers examine the same phenomenon with different methods. The biochemist sees the molecules, the psychologist the behavior, the sociologist the social consequences. Their perspectives complement one another. All theories remain valid within their domain.
Pattern B: Dialectical sublation. The relation between Newton and Einstein: the new theory preserves all the successful predictions of the old, overcomes its limits, and raises it to a higher level. Newton is not “refuted” but understood as a special case – valid at low velocities.
Pattern C: Revolutionary paradigm shift. The transition to quantum mechanics: the old basic concepts are replaced by new ones for the atomic domain. For macroscopic objects, the classical concepts remain valid – an example of domain restriction rather than total rejection.
The Fundamental Rule: The Phenomena Must Be Saved
Even the wildest paradigm shift must accomplish one thing: it must be able to explain all the observations that the old paradigm explained – plus the new ones it could not explain.
“Saving the phenomena” – this old maxim means: the observations remain valid; only their interpretation changes. Einstein did not “refute” Newton. He showed that Newton’s laws continue to hold – as a special case. The new paradigm saves the phenomena of the old and additionally explains why the old one worked and where its limits lay.
Paradoxically, it is precisely the revolutionary paradigm shifts that confirm the principles of science. When a revolution succeeds, it is because it grounds itself more transparently, integrates more perspectives, resolves contradictions more productively, and explains all phenomena more coherently than the old paradigm. Scientific revolutions are not exceptions to the rules of science – they are their highest fulfillment.
—