·General Thinking & Meta-Models
Section 1
The Core Idea
Science does not advance by steady accumulation. It advances in fits: long periods of normal science under a dominant paradigm, then crisis, then revolution. Thomas Kuhn's The Structure of Scientific Revolutions (1962) gave this picture its name. A paradigm is the shared framework of theory, methods, and standards that a scientific community uses. Under a paradigm, scientists solve puzzles — they extend and refine the framework. Anomalies that don't fit are often set aside or explained away. When anomalies pile up and the paradigm can't absorb them, the field enters crisis. Eventually a new paradigm emerges that redefines the problems and the standards. That is a scientific revolution. The old paradigm is not merely extended; it is replaced.
Kuhn's insight applies beyond science. Industries and firms operate under paradigms: shared beliefs about what works, how to compete, and what counts as success. Normal business is puzzle-solving within that paradigm. Discontinuities — new technology, regulation, or behaviour — can accumulate as anomalies until the old way of thinking cracks. The shift to a new paradigm is often resisted by incumbents whose identity and investment are tied to the old one. The revolution is not just a new product; it is a new way of seeing the field.
Understanding the structure of scientific revolutions helps you spot when you're in normal-science mode versus crisis mode, and when a paradigm shift is likely. It also explains why smart people defend dying paradigms: the paradigm defines what counts as a good argument and a valid result. To someone inside the old paradigm, the new one can look like bad science or bad strategy — until the new paradigm wins and the old one becomes history.
