[QuidQuoPro]

Once upon a time, not that long ago, there was a physicist. His name was Thomas Kuhn. He turned to philosophy of science. Having observed the prime science of physics from a ring side seat he presented his philosophy of science. The idea is rather simple and the idea is not deep at all but the Marxist intelligentsia wet gaga ever since. Transition from one paradigm to another via revolution is the usual developmental pattern of science. The last sentence is Thomas Kuhn, I kid you not, in a sentence. And then the leftists wanted to apply it to everything. Was he not talking about revolution? Was he not a conventional scientist? So why not follow him?

Another atheist physicist had a scathing view of Thomas Kuhn's idea. He is Steven Weinberg. Here is the article.

But a lot of damage was done by Karl Popper himself. We'll write a small post on him next. But just two points about Kuhn formalism - just to kick start the discussion. He was talking about mature science. So what about non-mature? If your theory does not cover the nascent phase then it is not comprehensive. And what about future of science? Will it continue that way into future also? Paradigm to paradigm via revolution? In last half a century, after his book called The Structure of Scientific Revolution, we do not have much evidence in the same direction. Of course the paradigm of paradigm shift has been pushed, in the mean while, to ridiculous limits. Our leftist intelligentsia ran out of ideas a long back ago. It will be a good idea to compile all those silly things that they have been experimenting with for decades now - post modernism, deconstruction, and all that.