The Structure of Scientific Revolutions -Thomas Kuhn

Thomas Kuhn's book, The Structure of Scientific Revolutions (2012), published first in 1962, pertains to the periods throughout history that can be recognized as "scientific revolutions." According to Kuhn, once a discipline of science is established, it experiences many different stages of development during the course of its existence. Before any discipline is fully matured, there is a period of disarray, where there are various conceptions and theories all competing to be the accepted foundation for that field of science. This stage is identified as a pre-paradigmatic period. However, eventually, a central theory materializes that trumps all of its competitors, and thus a paradigm, an "accepted [example] of actual scientific practice" (Kuhn, 2012), is formed. By Kuhn's definition, a paradigm "is at the start largely a promise of success discoverable in selected and still incomplete examples" and is "an object for further articulation and specification under new or more stringent conditions" (Kuhn, 2012). The dominant paradigm is accepted until there is apparent inconsistency. Scientists, then, question the paradigm and the competition of theories begins again until a new, dominant paradigm emerges and is thus accepted within the scientific discipline. Through the development of paradigms, a normal science is born (Kuhn, 2012).

The discipline of psychology is often questioned as to whether or not it is in a paradigmatic stage and if it can be considered a normal science. According to Kuhn's theory of paradigms and normal science, psychology is in a pre-paradigmatic phase (Kuhn, 2012). This argument can be based off of two principles, the first being that there is no single dominant approach to psychology, but instead a compilation of distinctive theoretical ideas concerning different ways of thinking and behaving. His second line of reasoning focuses on psychology's overlap with many different sciences, including neuroscience, biology, sociology, and philosophy. However, these other disciplines of science are very dissimilar to each other in content and foundation, causing psychology to look rather scattered. By Kuhn's accepted model of a paradigmatic science, psychology does not fit this criteria (Kuhn, 2012).

However, there are other possible outlooks to the overlying question concerning psychology and its foundation. While I do not believe that psychology can be fully considered a normal science, as it embodies a multitude of paradigms and does not have any universal laws of human behavior, the discipline is a paradigmatic science. First of all, Charles Darwin's theory of evolution, stating that living things evolve gradually by a process of natural selection to promote survival and reproduction (Gray, 2011), has had a considerable impact on psychology. Evolution, explaining the mind and behavior in terms of survival and reproduction, has provided the field of psychology with a structure for studying how people think and behave. Darwin's theory is certainly considered a paradigm within the field of biology (Kuhn, 2012). Thus, because the principles of psychology are so deeply rooted in the theory of evolution, evolutionary psychology exemplifies Kuhn's definition of a paradigm.

Furthermore, Gray provides a foundation for psychology consisting of three principles: 1) behavior and mental experiences