sign in sign up
<<
Home , Normal science, Paradigm shift, Thomas Kuhn

A contemporary assessment of : The detection of gravitational waves as a Kuhnian revolution

David Bishel*

B.S. Candidate, Department of , California State University Stanislaus, 1 University Circle, Turlock, CA 95382

Received 17 April, 2017; accepted 19 July 2017

Abstract

What denotes a ? What makes an event so groundbreaking that it fundamentally alters the course of thereafter? These questions inspired Thomas S. Kuhn’s 1962 The Structure of Scientific Revolutions. Kuhn’s work introduces and expounds upon the of and shifts, sparking decades of debate and producing a more insightful understanding of the of science. Though Kuhn is occasionally understood one-dimensionally as a philosophical intermediary to later theories of scientific revolution, this paper argues that Kuhn’s theory can instead be successfully employed as a benchmark of revolutions, inspiring a more robust understanding of specific and the nature of science in general. A brief delineation of Kuhn’s framework of paradigms establishes and defines terms that are central to the discourse (e.g. paradigm, theory, and ). Kuhn’s work is then converted from a way of talking about science to a way of identifying scientific revolutions. The recent detection of gravitational waves is employed as a case study to demonstrate that Kuhn’s work can be used specifically to delineate why a given event is revolutionary. As a result, this paper illuminates some of the central elements that comprise the emerging field of gravitational wave astronomy.

Keywords: paradigm, Kuhn, scientific revolution, gravitational waves

Predominant scientific theories are largely responsible subsequent sociological thought or an indirect contributor for informing the general conception of in the to the social sciences. In the other camp are the likes of current scientific era. What occurs when Devlin and other contributors to Kuhn’s Structure of contradicts the dominant conception of reality? If Scientific Revolutions - 50 Years On. These men and contradiction arises only in one instance, then likely women maintain that Kuhn’s theory is relevant as an nothing happens; science resumes its previous course. integrated whole and should be valued as a single unit, not However, the circumstance in which such contradictions only distributed piecewise to other disciplines. Many of the cannot be ignored is far more problematic and is a essays in Devlin’s anthology emphasize an accurate consideration central to the of Thomas S. Kuhn. interpretation of Kuhn as their primary goal. In so doing, Throughout the second half of the twentieth century, Kuhn the authors treat Kuhn’s work as pertinent to current wrote extensively regarding science and scientific . Devlin’s colleagues consider revolutions, delineating both the normal operation of Kuhnian thought not as a historical relic but as an active scientific communities and the transition to new scientific and relevant ideology of science. Most notably, editor and paradigms. As with the writings of nearly all seminal author Devlin addresses what he believes to be a fatal thinkers, Kuhn’s have been reinterpreted and conscripted to contradiction within Kuhn’s theory and, instead of casting one philosophical faction and another1. His ideas have been aside an outdated and irreparable philosophy, posits an embroiled in a battle of interpretation nearly since they amendment to lend Kuhn’s theory greater consistency 3. were first published. The Kuhnian-inspired Strong Together, the authors justify, defend, and even expand Programme extrapolated Kuhn’s philosophy to its logical upon Kuhn’s philosophy – work that the authors would not extremes and essentially “develop[ed] a position that Kuhn engage in if the targeted philosophy were flawed. did not recognize as his own” even while Kuhn was striving In the same interpretive , I propose a direct to “distinguish his own project from the new of application of Kuhn’s relevant and vibrant philosophy. I science [that is, the Programme]”. 2 In one interpretive maintain that Kuhn’s theory itself can be deployed to camp are those who view Kuhn as a stepping stone to understand individual scientific revolutions and the

* Corresponding author. Email: [email protected] 1 Jouni-Matti Kuukkanen, “Rereading Kuhn.” International Studies in the Philosophy of Science 23, no. 2 (July 1, 2009), 217. Kuukkuanen suggests that authors have interpreted Kuhn as belonging to various schools of thought – often to the benefit of whichever author is conducting the interpretation. 2 Devlin, William, ed. Kuhn’s Structure of Scientific Revolutions - 50 Years On. New York: Springer International Publishing, 2015, 173, 167. 3 Ibid., 153-166.

5 paradigms they demarcate. Since Kuhn wrote about theory were imprecise, blending previous senses of the word while and theoretical change, paradigm and paradigm shifts, and adding on flavors of his own creation. In , linguist and science and scientific revolutions, his work would be philosopher shows Kuhn to have directly applicable if it can be used to accurately identify attached the term “paradigm” to twenty-one distinct whether an event constitutes a scientific revolution and, if phenomena.5 Therefore, I propose that “paradigm” be used so, in what ways the event constitutes such a change. After only to refer to the general to which a scientific delineating the central components of Kuhn’s philosophy, community adheres within the stage of normal science; I I will distill his criteria for revolution into an evaluative tool will maintain this usage throughout the discourse. More to readily identify scientific revolutions, for the same specifically, a paradigm is the broad yet definable purpose that a rubric is crafted to readily assess a work collection of theory, rules, and disciplinary matrix adhered based on some standardized benchmark. I will then apply to by a that enables it to conduct Kuhn’s criteria for revolution to recent scientific events that normal science. The elements of a paradigm tend to be have been popularly touted as revolutionary. These events elusive, tacitly posited, and largely assumed a priori by will serve as a test case of how accurately Kuhn’s theory members of the community. captures the essence of a scientific revolution. Theory Perhaps the term that is confounded the most with Kuhn’s Theory of Scientific Paradigms “paradigm” in Kuhn’s development of theory is the word “theory” itself. The theory is that which most think of as When Thomas Kuhn wrote The Structure of Scientific being the full of a given discipline. However, Revolutions, he was proposing a genuinely novel as Kuhn employs it, a theory only pertains to what a philosophy of science. To delineate the structure of disciplinary community asserts is true. A theory is scientific communities, a pivotal in his philosophy, essentially a lexicon of entities and their properties, a list of Kuhn had to craft his own definitions from the language what exists and how each entity behaves and interacts with available to him, definitions that could exactly suit his the others. As an example, consider the classical intentions. 4 He thus developed a semi-hierarchical Aristotelian and Enlightenment-era Newtonian-Galilean framework of terms broadly encompassed by a “paradigm”. theories of motion. In the Aristotelian theory, any change While the term “paradigm” is commonly defined as one’s in an object was thought to be describable as a movement or beliefs, Kuhn’s conception of paradigm towards its natural state; heavy objects fall without transcends this common definition in both precision and impedance to the ground, wood floats happily on water, and sophistication. As we will see in the following sections, the the planets suspend in the heavens all because such are their framework that Kuhn establishes is intricately self- respective ideal states. The Newtonian-Galilean theory referential. However, Kuhn does not present a circular makes no mention of natural states, but rather concerns argument, isolated from the rest of philosophy of science. itself with quantifiable forces applied to an object; heavy Instead, Kuhn’s framework functions like a truss bridge objects are attracted towards the massive earth under the whose every interconnecting strut increases the overall force of gravity that increases with the inverse-square of structural integrity. Unfortunately, this means that Kuhn’s separation, wood is buoyed upward by Archimedes’ theory is not as simple as the common definition; the buoyant force equivalent to the weight of water displaced, interactions among the whole are just as necessary as the and satellites and planets have circular orbits when their definitions of the parts. At the end a diagrammatic velocity and radius of orbit are in right proportion to each overview of the relationships among the terms has been other. included, and it may be helpful to refer to the figure throughout the discussion (see Figure 1). Rules If we consider “theory” to be the descriptive content of Paradigm the paradigm, then the rules are the preconceived First and foremost, a scientific discipline is pursued “commitments” 6 that dictate acceptable theory-content. and furthered by a scientific community, a collection of The dominating commitment of a community, the premise individuals that adhere to and are bound by a “paradigm.” that a community will hold on to until the very last, can be This single word – “paradigm” – is responsible for much of relegated to this rules category, as can the more visible the confusion regarding Kuhn’s conceit of scientific methodological issues of what data are permissible and theories and theory change. His earliest uses of the term

4 Thomas S. Kuhn, The Structure of Scientific Revolutions, Chicago, Ill.: used in the philosophy of science, …“theory” connotes a structure far University of Chicago Press, 1996, 182. For instance, Kuhn considered more limited in nature and scope than the one required.” “theory” a better title for what he names the “disciplinary matrix” in the 5 Brad K. Wray, “Kuhn and the Discovery of Paradigms,” Philosophy of “Postscript” of the second edition of Structure. But alas, “as currently the Social Sciences 41, no. 3 (2011), 387. 6 Kuhn, The Structure of Scientific Revolutions, 39-40.

6 what questions the program of normal science mechanical models. Each atomic model is derived from its should investigate. respective theory and aids in visualizing the physical structure predicted by the theory, but the models can be Disciplinary matrix comprehended without mention of any contributing In order to more fully account for the cohesion among calculation. Thus, the model serves as an effective scientific communities, Kuhn eventually resorted to conceptual picture of the final conclusions of a theory. invoking a new cause, the “disciplinary matrix” 7 . The disciplinary matrix of a community describes the actual Exemplars means of communication within a community and Prior to Kuhn, a paradigm was a table of verb tense encompasses the various representations of a community’s conjugations that applies to most words in a given language. paradigm – alphanumeric, visual, and pedagogical If a student of a language studies only the paradigms, then representations, corresponding to symbolic generalizations, she will be adequately prepared to handle a majority of verb models, and exemplars. conjugations. In the same way that of the linguistic paradigms equips one to conjugate any typical Symbolic generalizations verb, a Kuhnian exemplar is a “concrete problem solution”8 Symbolic generalizations are the simplified and that equips one to solve many of a community’s relevant standardized notations employed by a disciplinary problems; the method of solution demonstrated in an community and often assume alphanumeric representations exemplar can be emulated in a related problem to derive an of whole systems. Any physicist immediately recognizes accepted answer. Summarizing Kuhn, Wray suggests that F = ma, any chemist 1s22s22p4, any mathematician = an exemplar “must (i) be widely accepted solutions to 2 𝑑𝑑 𝑥𝑥 concrete problems, but also (ii) provide guidance to . It is worth noting that each community trains2 its 9 𝑑𝑑𝑡𝑡 as they try to solve other related problems” . members in such a “trade-marked” perspective. To the Though an exemplar explicitly addresses a single problem, −𝑘𝑘𝑘𝑘 mathematician, F = ma is a linear relation between F and an exemplar is only useful if it is also applicable to a more a; to the physicist, it is the initial equation by which a whole general class of problems. Perhaps the most well-known field of problems is solved. Similarly, the mathematician scientific exemplar is that of Darwin’s finches. Being recognizes = as a second-order differential presented in much the same way in any Introduction to 2 𝑑𝑑 𝑥𝑥 – course, its familiarity attests to its acceptance. It equation giving2 = , whereas a physicist will see 𝑑𝑑𝑡𝑡 −𝑘𝑘𝑘𝑘 the equation of simple𝑖𝑖𝑖𝑖𝑖𝑖 harmonic motion. Neither is concrete, distillable into a single question: how is it that disciplinarian is 𝑥𝑥correct𝐴𝐴𝑒𝑒 or more insightful than the other. there are so many varieties of Galapagos finches, each Rather, each is expressing the accepted symbolic isolated to a given island and possessing a distinct beak generalizations learned during initial acclimation into her morphology? And the solution is applicable to related respective community. problems that lie far beyond the range of finches. Forming the basis of evolutionary theory, Darwin’s solution not only Model provides standard explanatory principles regarding A model is a conceptual approximation of a system morphological divergences but also establishes a deductive that provides insight into the system’s mechanism. Models approach for determining evolutionary relatedness. In short, deviate from symbolic generalizations in that models an exemplar must pose a discrete question and offer a possess as a central component some physical aspect compelling and broadly applicable answer. having spatial significance, whereas symbolic Furthermore, the exemplar is the necessary device for generalizations typically do not convey meaning regarding initiating, equipping, and acclimating new members to a physical . When discussing a physical spring, a scientific community. If uniformity of paradigm implies physicist will refer to the symbolic generalization of its possession of the same lexicon, the same commitments, and the same language of discourse, then a community motion, = , and to the model of an ideal spring, a 2 possessing a common paradigm has no need for recourse to 𝑑𝑑 𝑥𝑥 mass suspended2 from a vertical spring with negligible air fundamentals and can pursue topics beyond the foundation 𝑑𝑑𝑡𝑡 −𝑘𝑘𝑘𝑘 resistance and no internal friction. Essentially, models of the discipline. Kuhn suggests that a common initiation describe the physical manifestation of a phenomenon, process, provided by the solution of exemplars, introduces while symbolic generalizations relate the mathematics or a new member to the community’s paradigm. The student the nomenclature of the phenomenon. Many may be or member of a scientific community will immediately familiar with the various early models of the atom: the recognize that such a common initiation by exemplars is “plum pudding,” Rutherford’s, Bohr’s, and the quantum already institutionalized, merely by reflecting upon her

7 Thomas S. Kuhn, “Second Thoughts,” in The Essential Tension: 8 Ibid., 298. Selected Studies in Scientific Tradition and Change (Chicago, Ill.: 9 Wray, “Kuhn and the Discovery of Paradigms,” 389. University of Chicago Press, 1977), 297.

7 own education. Any introductory Biology 101 course will critical to the previous paradigm and deploying something discuss Darwin’s finches, any Chemistry 101 Dalton’s in its place – something that necessarily did not emerge Laws of Proportions, any Physics 101 Newton’s inclined from nor can be understood by the preceding paradigm. plane, as these are exemplars of their respective disciplines. Such is the , dramatic enough to warrant the It is the exemplar that orients students to major solutions of label of “scientific revolution.” modern theory and the mystifying discoveries that inspire However, Kuhn presents speciation as another modern research. A set of common exemplars is necessary resolution to scientific crisis,12 an alternative that maintains to initiate students into a disciplinarian community, thereby some continuity with the older paradigm. If, when a unifying and perpetuating the paradigm of the community. discovery is made, a significant set of problems are revealed that can be addressed under the previous paradigm, Normal science, scientific revolution, and speciation a specialized niche community may emerge to pursue When a scientific community holds each element of a solutions to the new problems. Just as some form of paradigm in common – theory, rules, and elements of the isolation is a prerequisite to biological speciation, technical disciplinary matrix – a foundation of communication and isolation is a prerequisite to scientific speciation. “Isolation” unity is established, and the community can engage in the refers to the barriers to communication with other more sophisticated pursuits of normal science. 10 Normal disciplines; it is “technical” because communicative science occupies the typical operation of a discipline and barriers emerge as the techniques of a discipline become operates entirely within a paradigm. Equivalently, normal increasingly specialized. Eventually, only those within the science is the scientific operation of a paradigm. How then community are sufficiently versed in the discipline to do we transition outside of a self-perpetuating, genuinely contribute to research. Such isolation “bar[s] full predominantly successful conception of the world to adopt communication” 13 with other disciplines. A technically a new, likely uncertain, and largely untested paradigm? isolated community has no anchor to its parent community, According to Kuhn, the pursuit of normal science mimics and the new community’s paradigm may freely transform the solving of a series of puzzles that are all assumed to be under influence of its normal scientific pursuits. governed by the same rules, describable by the same The new paradigm will naturally, gradually diverge theories, and communicable via the same representations.11 from that of the parent community. In such a process, Given that a paradigm is imperfect, that it is not so well- operative definitions are modified, instrumentation and adapted as to encompass every possible puzzle one may measurements become increasingly specialized, and forms encounter, a will by chance pull a puzzle from the of representation inevitably drift. Eventually, shelf that will require an entirely different set of rules; he communication between the parent and niche communities will encounter a problem for which his paradigm provides breaks down,14 and it is evident that a new paradigm has no useful guidance. Examining the unknown puzzle is replaced the previous paradigm within the niche scientific discovery, the discovery of an anomaly by the community. Though speciation is a far more gradual natural progression of normal science. Discovery may lead process than the complete paradigm shifts of scientific to crisis, and crisis to revolution. revolutions, Kuhn nonetheless maintains speciation to be Thus, a majority of the time a disciplinarian revolutionary. community operates under the normal scientific regime and adheres to a single paradigm. A normal scientific community by virtue of its common paradigm possesses Expanding Kuhn’s Discussion to Current Events: The common theory, rules, and disciplinary matrix, which Detection of Gravitational Waves together enable esoteric pursuits and communication within the community. Should one or more aspects of the The question then stands: what must be present to paradigm be sufficiently questioned, doubted, or otherwise induce scientific revolution or speciation? What necessarily disrupted, the community will be cast into crisis, and a changes across a paradigm shift? Since a paradigm period of competitive paradigms may ensue. Eventually, comprises a theory, a disciplinary matrix, and rules, a one paradigm will gain sufficient support, and normal change in paradigm requires a change in one or more of science will resume under the new regime of the now- these paradigmatic elements. Specifically, a theory will dominant paradigm. The new paradigm will be in a change when its constituent definitions transform, when a different form from the previous paradigm, with different community’s fundamental assumptions about the world relevant questions and different methods of science. and entities in the world are amended. Rules, dictating Adopting a new paradigm requires abandoning an element admissible forms of and measurement, are altered

10 Kuhn, The Structure of Scientific Revolutions., 19-20. 13 Ibid. 11 Ibid., 36. 14 Ibid., 9. 12 Thomas S. Kuhn, “The Road since Structure.” PSA: Proceedings of the Biennial Meeting of the Philosophy of Science Association 1990 (1990), 8.

8 when new questions requiring new forms of data are definition in which any alteration of meaning amounts to a pursued. A community’s disciplinary matrix will transform consequent change in theory, then we arrive at just the with changes to the alphanumeric, visual, and pedagogical opposite conclusion. At its core a theory is a lexicon of representations that are used to communicate their entities and their properties. We can then conceivably argue paradigm. that two definitions and theories of GWs are possible – one We are now ready to ask ourselves the following in which the waves are observable, and one in which they questions of a given event to assess whether or not it is a are not. However, did these conflicting definitions actually Kuhnian revolution. exist? In 2016 with the public enthusiasm surrounding the official release of the detection, we know that the 1) Was there a change in fundamental definitions of Observable definition was dominant enough to earn the world and its entities, including addition or recognition by popular culture. What evidence, though, is subtraction of entities? available that there were those who doubted the 2) Are new commitments upheld, notably in the form detectability of gravitational waves? If a community of admissible data or in the employment of skeptical of GWs never existed, if there was never an earlier instruments in fundamentally novel ways? GW definition, then the Observable paradigm would have 3) Does the community rely on different been fully established by the time of detection, and the representations of the paradigm, particularly event would not be a Kuhnian revolution. Valerio Faraoni alphanumeric, visual, or pedagogical? combats such GW skeptics, addressing the “misconception among physics students and professionals alike” that To distinguish the possibility of speciation, we must certain interactions would render GWs practically include one further consideration. unobservable. 17 In his 2007 article, Faraoni strives to convince a certain subset of the physics community that 4) Does the previous community persist, free from GWs can in fact be detected. Even so late in the lifetime of competition with the new community, and is the LIGO , we find those who denounce the communication possible between the two? observability of GWs, those who ascribe to the Unobservable definition! 18 Yes, the Unobservable Should an event satisfy one or more of the above criteria, definition did in fact possess a supporting community. Thus, the event in question can be considered revolutionary in the there could have been a paradigm shift from the Observable Kuhnian sense. definition to the Unobservable definition of GWs. To invoke perhaps one of the more recent scientific Furthermore, the gap between definitions lies at a breakthroughs at the date of publication, let us now fundamental junction: observable versus unobservable. consider the first direct detection of gravitational waves The research program, or normal science, implied by each (GWs). This event incited such excitement that it was definition is radically different. The normal science of the touted as revolutionary – even in public discourse 15 . Observable definition beckons empirical corroboration Predicted by Einstein’s theory of , GWs while that of the Unobservable demands rigorous had yet to be measured directly until the September 2015 mathematical proofs. One program deals with detection at the Caltech/MIT collaborative Laser instrumentation, the other with chalk boards. We see that a Interferometer Gravitational-Wave Observatory (LIGO) definitional change as apparently insignificant as removing detector. 16 However, does this first-of-its-kind the prefix from “unobservable” can propagate into an measurement constitute a Kuhnian scientific revolution? astounding shift in a paradigm and its normal scientific program, and potentially indicate a Kuhnian revolution. Has theory changed? In one sense, a majority of the theory of GWs did not Have rules been altered? change with the 2015 detection but was born out of Realignment of commitments may also affirm the Einstein’s well-accepted theory of general relativity. Under occurrence of a Kuhnian revolution. As already alluded to, this limited view, the GW detection is not a revolutionary different definitions, programs of normal science, and event but an observation corroborating Einstein’s general paradigms can emphasize different forms of admissible relativity. However, if we maintain a strictly Kuhnian data. To a first approximation, the preference of data of the

15 Justin Worland, “Scientists Confirm Einstein’s Theory of Gravitational (2007), 677–84, doi:10.1007/s10714-007-0415-5. Some physicists Waves,” Time Magazine, February 11, 2016, thought that interactions between the GW and the detector and between http://time.com/4217353/einstein-gravitational-waves/ the GW and space would counteract each other, rendering GWs 16 “Gravitational Waves Detected 100 Years After Einstein’s Prediction.” unobservable in practice. (Press Release, Washington, DC, February 11, 2016), 18 Astoundingly late; LIGO’s nascence extends back into the 1970s and https://www.ligo.caltech.edu/news/ligo20160211 80s. See https://www.ligo.caltech.edu/page/timeline 17 Valerio Faraoni, “A Common Misconception about LIGO Detectors of Gravitational Waves.” General Relativity and Gravitation 39, no. 5

9 Observable and Unobservable definitions is empirical or and paradigm is more aptly described as scientific theoretical data, respectively. However, the Observable speciation. definition doesn’t simply emphasize empirical data over theoretical calculations. Empirical data are necessarily Has the disciplinary matrix been updated? incompatible with the earlier Unobservable definition of We have established cause to believe that the GWs. Consider some hypothetical detector whose sole definition of GWs was subtly yet fundamentally changed; purpose is to detect GWs (or, the very real LIGO detector that new forms of data became admissible, enabling that has been similarly constructed to solely detect GWs). construction of the LIGO detector; and that the GW No sane research program operating under the community emerged through a process of scientific Unobservable definition would divert resources to a speciation. Though this change did not encompass any detector to observe that which, by definition, its members element of the disciplinary matrix of the community, a maintain is unobservable. Conversely, such a detector delay in the emergence of distinct representations is not would be deemed immensely valuable under the surprising.19 As speciation progresses, the paradigm of the Observable definition, as such a detector would provide the gravitational wave astronomy community will be empirical means to validate their paradigm. The empirical continually refined, diverging and becoming gradually data would likewise be admissible only according to the more incommensurable with the general astronomical Observable GW definition. The new definition of GWs paradigm. Only then, after years of development of the allows for new admissible forms of evidence, which then paradigm under technical isolation from other disciplines, prompts development of highly specialized instrumentation. can we expect to identify a transformation in the The that new data are admissible and specialized community’s representative forms. Regarding exemplars, it instrumentation are developed can be attributable to a is possible that LIGO’s GW detection may be venerated to transformation in the community’s rules and commitments, the class of exemplars. As the first direct detection of GWs, suggesting that a Kuhnian revolution likely has occurred. the event certainly poses a significant milestone in the By this argument, the Observable and Unobservable course of GW astronomy – should this emergent subfield definitions can then be said to belong to separate paradigms. earn its longevity. If LIGO’s instrumentation and method of detection remain central to the discipline, then this Has speciation occurred? milestone will remain directly applicable towards the future Between the Observable and Unobservable paradigms, state of the discipline, constituting sufficient reason for there was arguably a wholesale Kuhnian revolution, as the exemplar status. Similarly, discoveries made by the GW Observable paradigm essentially eliminated that of the community that become central to their theory would likely Unobservable. However, the Observable-Unobservable inform the symbolic generalizations and models that will competition of paradigms was a debate solely within the be incorporated into the paradigm. LIGO could potentially GW community over the nature of GWs, the theory of GWs, influence the various representations of GWs, but such a and the paradigm of GWs; this level of competition did not claim remains speculative. We must wait for LIGO to involve any other discipline. There is thus a second level of become before we may sufficiently assess its impact potential revolution we must consider, a revolution on the representational forms of the disciplinary matrix. involving the GW community and some other discipline. Regardless of any immediate change in disciplinary Yet even in this broader scope, the GW paradigm was never matrix, the GW detection event can still be considered poised to compete with the larger astronomical paradigm. indicative of a Kuhnian revolution, signaling that a new No aspect of the GW community is positioned to theory of GWs, new rules, and a new paradigm now guide undermine or supplant any part of the larger astronomical the GW community. More specifically, the detection is a community from which it emerged. One can readily believe notable event in a process of scientific speciation, that the GW community seeks to investigate and producing the GW community from the more general understand GWs, while the rest of the astronomical astronomical community. communities seek to investigate and understand their In agreement with the popular consensus of the GW astronomical interests. The paradigm of the GW observation, an analysis based on Thomas Kuhn’s community can presumably coexist with that of the conception of scientific revolution strongly suggests that astronomical community, presenting a set of problems that the event is indicative of a scientific revolution. However, can be pursued alongside those of the general astronomical a certain subtlety should be noted. The public declares that paradigm. Having neither overturned nor challenged the the observation itself is revolutionary, but this statement previous paradigm, the emergence of the GW community must be qualified. From a Kuhnian perspective, we can only go so far as to say that the observation is a noteworthy

19 Kuhn, “Road since Structure,” 8. There often is “difficulty in identifying an episode of speciation until some time after it has occurred”.

10 validation of the GW paradigm. The event signals that a the practicality of materials science, the instrumentation of revolution has taken place; the event is therefore ultrafast , and the global-mindedness of global revolutionary but is not actually a revolution. The Kuhnian ecology. In the modern scientific era, the public is more revolution had already begun by the time of observation scientifically literate than ever, and the dominant scientific and will continue as the GW paradigm undergoes paradigms increasingly intersect and even influence the speciation, diverging from that of the parent astronomical public sphere. Understanding current scientific paradigms community. We thus conclude that Kuhn’s work not only then becomes a sociological pursuit, pertinent to scientists is directly applicable to identify scientific revolutions and and the laity alike. In the modern era a direct application of offers an explanation of what is changed across a revolution, Kuhn’s criteria for scientific revolution is imperative, as his but also presents a more nuanced conception of the process work provides us insight into current scientific paradigms of scientific revolution. by distinguishing them from those that were held A Kuhnian analysis can aid in understanding that previously. By employing Kuhn’s conception of paradigm scientific revolutions occur all the time. The communities and applying it to identify differences between the and paradigms of materials science20, ultrafast optics21, and paradigms on either side of a revolution, we can potentially global ecology22 did not even exist prior to the 1960s. The track the ever evolving conception of reality and perhaps emergence of each of these fields tells us something about illuminate how these paradigms inform the meta-narratives the paradigm of the communities from which they emerged, of society. By understanding the evolution of a scientific and the overall values and commitments of the societies in discipline, we come to understand something about our which they were first established. Something about the society as a whole. greater society valued the knowledge gained from GWs,

References Bishel, David. “Theory Change by Scientific Revolution: An Assessment Kuukkanen, Jouni-Matti. “Rereading Kuhn.” International Studies in the of Kuhnian Revolutions.” Poster at the CSU Stanislaus Honors Philosophy of Science 23, no. 2 (July 1, 2009): 217–24. Capstone Conference, Turlock, CA, May 6, 2016. Martin, Joseph D. “What’s in a Name Change?” Physics in Perspective Devlin, William, ed. Kuhn’s Structure of Scientific Revolutions - 50 17, no. 1 (2015): 3–32. doi:10.1007/s00016-014-0151-7. Years On. New York: Springer International Publishing, 2015. Mooney, Harold A., Anantha Duraiappah, and Anne Larigauderie. Faraoni, Valerio. “A Common Misconception about LIGO Detectors of “Evolution of Natural and Interactions in Global Gravitational Waves.” General Relativity and Gravitation 39, no. 5 Change Research Programs.” Proceedings of the National Academy (2007): 677–84, doi:10.1007/s10714-007-0415-5. of Sciences of the United States of America 110 (2013): 3665–72. “Gravitational Waves Detected 100 Years After Einstein’s Prediction.” Rose, Melinda. “A History of the Laser: A Trip through the Light Press Release. Washington, DC, February 11, 2016. Fantastic.” Photonics. https://www.ligo.caltech.edu/news/ligo20160211. http://www.photonics.com/EDU/Handbook.aspx?AID=42279. Kuhn, Thomas S. “On Learning Physics.” Science & Education 9, no. 1 Worland, Justin. “Scientists Confirm Einstein’s Theory of Gravitational (n.d.): 11–19. Waves.” Time Magazine. February 11, 2016. –––. The Essential Tension: Selected Studies in Scientific Tradition and http://time.com/4217353/einstein-gravitational-waves/. Change. Chicago, Ill.: University of Chicago Press, 1977. Wray, Brad K. “Kuhn and the Discovery of Paradigms.” Philosophy of –––. “The Road since Structure.” PSA: Proceedings of the Biennial the Social Sciences 41, no. 3 (2011): 380–97. Meeting of the Philosophy of Science Association 1990 (1990): 3–13. –––. The Structure of Scientific Revolutions. Chicago, Ill.: University of Chicago Press, 1996.

20 Martin, Joseph D. “What’s in a Name Change?” Physics in 22 Harold A. Mooney, Anantha Duraiappah, and Anne Larigauderie, Perspective 17, no. 1 (2015), 6. doi:10.1007/s00016-014-0151-7. The “Evolution of Natural and Social Science Interactions in Global Change discipline of materials science emerged in the 1960s as an alternative to Research Programs,” Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences the previously established solid state physics. of the United States of America 110 (2013), 3665. Modern global 21 Melinda Rose. “A History of the Laser: A Trip through the Light ecology, or earth systems science, didn’t emerge until the 1980s, fueled Fantastic,” Photonics, by “[e]fforts to develop a global understanding of the function of the http://www.photonics.com/EDU/Handbook.aspx?AID=42279 Ultrafast Earth as a system”. laser pulses were first demonstrated with the tunable dye laser, invented by Bernard Soffer and Bill McFarland in 1967.

11 after Bishel 2016

Figure 1. Left, static case of science, in which a scientific community ascribing to certain commonalities conducts “normal science.” Right, dynamic case of science, in which normal science uncovers irreconcilable anomalies, creating scientific crisis and creating a climate in which a new theory may emerge as dominant.

12