Kuhn’s theory of scientific revolutions remains influential in the explanation of modern science. Traditionally, the narrative of scientific development was often described in terms of “progress” and “culmination”. Kuhn’s theory, which emphasised periodization and disruption, thus provided a novel approach in our understanding of science – its fundamental workings, its progress and its challenges at an epistemological level. The primary features of Kuhn’s theory could be seen in terms of pre-paradigms, paradigms (or normal science), anomalies, crisis, post-crisis and revolutions.

Video describing Kuhn’s notion of paradigm shifts via metaphors.

Credit: nradke

Studying the complications

However, science remains an extremely diverse and broad discipline. There are certain challenges inherent when applying Kuhn’s model, as a way to explain the nature of science. There are instances in which discovering a “scientific breakthrough” or witnessing a paradigm shift is not straightforward. In reality, “anomalies” to the incumbent paradigm might not necessarily lead immediately to a paradigm shift. This could be the result of multiple factors (I will describe how so, later). It is also important that we define what “anomalies” are and recognize that its definition is not necessarily straight-forward. Thus, it is pertinent to examine the history of genetics and whether its course of development reflects these challenges. In sum, by examining these nuances, I hope to present the argument that the path towards the current paradigm of Mendelian genetics is not necessarily linear.