The Crocodile in the Yangtze River, Kuhn and a New Lexicon (Part 3 of 3)

By: Siyanda Pali

In 1962, Thomas Kuhn, who initially began as a Physicist and subsequently became a Historian and Philosopher of Science, published what was then a controversial but is now a highly influential book among scholars entitled, "The Structure of Scientific Revolutions." Leiden University Faculty of Humanities Lecturer of Metaphysics and Philosophy of Science, Victor Gijsbers, is certainly one of the best teachers of this subject I have ever heard. Alas, I digress. In his book. Kuhn postulates a theory for how science develops over time, mainly through 4 phases:

• The Pre-paradigmatic phase- which occurs only once in every field of science
• Normal Science
• Crisis
• Scientific Revolution

The latter 3 phases, Kuhn argued, happen all the time, with a return either to Normal Science or a clean break from the status quo by means of a Scientific Revolution.

Shanghai (chinalocaltours.com)

He also introduces the concept of a 'paradigm', which can be defined as all the theories, facts, methods etc, which a scientific discipline takes for granted and which guide scientific research in that discipline. 

The Pre-paradigmatic phase is the genesis of any scientific discipline, beginning without any mutually inclusive methods, theories and concepts. Scientists in this phase still need to come up with and develop the above eg the first historians were not in agreement about the correct way to write history. The earliest physicists didn't really know what terms to use when speaking about nature. Scientists in this paradigm can sometimes be poles apart. They do things differently, operate under different assumptions, have varying measurements and possess contrasting ideas about which problems are worth exploring. This, Kuhn believes, is an unproductive phase, because not only is collaboration for scientists synonymous to chiselling a rock with a Banana, it is also difficult to build upon the work of other scientists. It's a somewhat chaotic period until, for some or other reason (which can also be fascinating to explore), the next phase is reached. 

Normal Science then, is a state of affairs in which there is a generally accepted or upheld paradigm. In this phase, Kuhn states that scientists believe that it would be a waste of time to be critical about the paradigm e.g. Oxygen is an essential element for human life or that one Jan Van Riebeeck arrived in South Africa in 1652. He also notes that this is plausible because without it, no worthwhile or significant work or research could take place. This is the importance of a theoretical or methodological background. Within Normal Science, scientists are trying to solve puzzles within the rules of the paradigm. It is also common then, that within Normal Science, scientists come across an anomaly, a problem within the dominant paradigm which at the time, scientists are unable to solve. While Karl Popper would hold the view that anomalies are evidence of the falsehood of a theory and a paradigm, and both ought to be rejected outright as a result, Khun, on the other hand, believes that there will always be anomalies within a given paradigm in every sphere or scientific discipline i.e. things which scientists are unable to explain at the time within a given paradigm.

During Normal Science, according to Khun, scientists still possess a great deal of confidence that anomalies can and will be solved within a given paradigm. However, if the number of anomalies grows and scientists are unable to solve them within a given paradigm, this leads to a dearth of confidence in the paradigm and to the next phase, which is 'Crisis'. In this phase, scientists become critical of the paradigm and entertain the possibility of changing it. Radical and new thinking emerges as a result. The more prolonged a state of Crisis is, the more appealing fresh and radical ideas become. 

There are then 2 ways to end a Crisis. Scientists within the paradigm either need to solve the anomalies within the paradigm, which leads to a resurgence of confidence in the paradigm and Normal Science is then restored. Alternatively, the realisation of something else takes hold: a 'Scientific Revolution'. 

Within a Scientific Revolution, the old paradigm is rejected or abandoned by a great deal of scientists and a new paradigm gains traction and is supported by a large number of scientists. A new set of methods, theories and concepts become the standard which possess the potential to solve anomalies. Within a Scientific Revolution, one theory is forsaken, and another is embraced by the scientific community. This is what Kuhn refers to as a 'Paradigm shift'. These are very pronounced moments in history and have the potential to make an impact for decades or even centuries to come eg Aristotelian vs Newtonian vs Einsteinian science. It is important to note that, according to Kuhn, Normal Science is the rule and Scientific Revolution is the exception. Some of the most significant work is done in Normal Science. However, when a state of stagnation is reached, it is prime time for a period in which there is a high probability of a Scientific Revolution.

So, what does Alibaba have to do with Kuhn's Structure of Scientific Revolutions? Perhaps it is best, once again, to look at the life of the Founder of Alibaba, Jack Ma, for some answers. Alibaba is a companay born, to a large extent, due to Jack Ma's openness to new ideas, as well as the foresight, insight, drive, among other things, to bring the vision to fruition. There are numerous other invaluable components which were necessary to build the company into the behemoth which it is today, such as great talent, both from China and abroad, excellent Strategic Management, great leadership etc. Alibaba was an idea whose time had come and is a perfect example of the opportunities which exist before, during and after industrial revolutions. The 4th Industrial Revolution may very well cause significant disruption globally. However, one is fairly confident that nascent industries today eg Data Analytics, the Internet of Things (IoT), Artificial Intelligence (AI) etc will unlock a prodigious amount of opportunities in the future. It is also necessary for societies, invariably, to do some thinking about how the latter-mentioned for example (AI) should and could be utilised to best serve humanity, given Moore's Law for example.   

Perhaps it is fitting for me to also state another reason why I think Alibaba is a darling among so many. This reason is one of the primary reasons for my love and passion for technology and innovation: the ability to constantly engage great ideas and the immense value which the company creates for millions of people across the globe and the exponential potential to continue to do so over time.

One of the greatest tenets from the Alibaba story and that of Jack Ma specifically is that the human spirit cannot be catalogued. This is why it was possible for a former English Teacher to start and grow one of the largest technology companies the world over, directly and indirectly employing millions of people. I also think it is important to note that I am not advocating for the dogmatic stance that entrepreneurs or entrepreneurship is the only standard or measure of success we ought to aspire to. As important as they may be, we ought to delve deeper in our inquiry. If a global pandemic has not taught us that we ought to truly appreciate the diversity of gifts bestowed upon mankind, I'm not too sure what will. I do think it is more apt to strive for the creation of societies which allow people to express themselves, their talents and to fulfill their potential.