Science Paradigms by T. J. Kuhn
A Conservative Fix to Avoid Real Change

What he missed was ‘science’ remained in the long shadow of the medieval view of Aristotle and even Einstein’s work was truly just part of the same worldview of Aristotle’s Crystal Spheres restated to fit current observation. His theory of science paradigms kept the Medieval Scholastic reverence for Aristotle and the fixed system of the Universe and its academic interpreters.

Science paradigms are what are left of the medieval Scholastic view that Aristotle described how God designed the Universe and all that remains for current academics is to become established as the current interpreter of Aristotle. This is the essence of “modern” science paradigms as conceived by Kuhn.

The simplicity of the worldview of a Universe composed of fixed spheres clearly designed and organized by some Cosmic Clockwork Creator remains the essence of the “modern” science paradigms. T.J. Kuhn tried to limit his paradigms to just physics and astronomy on the grounds that the humanities and social sciences do not try to maintain one single science paradigm as the sole and absolute truth. He just glossed over the implications of any field still believing its textbook celebrity authors were still directly connected to Absolute Truth.

However, many social sciences eagerly demand that their celebrity best-seller authors be accorded the same status as Aristotle, Newton or Einstein. The alternative notion that this entire system of science paradigms with celebrity authors to be added to the pantheon of the Books of the Bible and other religious works to be adored by their fan clubs may be great for easy marketing, but it leads not to understanding but just passionate fights.

It is only the recent Big Bang theory observations and the catastrophic potentials of climate change that indicate the whole of the “modern” millennium is now tragically obsolete. The novel notion that our entire universe is just exploded bits of some unknown original Big Bang whose apparent regularities or precision can only be approximate and symbolic is the great divide between the medieval and the “postmodern.”

Science Paradigms as the Product
of the Scientific Community

Kuhn's insight was to note that once an established scientist came to believe in the work of one of the great celebrity authors, that never changed even if the data presented many anomalies unexplained by this author's paradigm theory.

It would only be younger scientists who would even listen to a new theory. A new best-seller book would need to be published presenting this new theory which had to explain all the major anomalies unexplained by the old paradigm.At this point, those believing in the new book had to also maintain their apprenticeship under those of the old paradigm.

This new book needed to become a best seller in its field, with those believing in its new theories and concepts becoming the next generation of established professors and professional scientists in that field. These transitional folks would have to be competent in both the old paradigm and the new book with its theories.

The more avant garde would create new instruments or techniques using the concepts of the new best seller in their research. Then they could found journals to publish the results demonstrating that these new techniques answered the old anomalies and opened up new avenues of understanding. All this, however, was not of itself sufficient. It was just the required prerequisite to paradigm status.

Even when the majority of those in the field were believers in the new best seller's concepts, it could not yet be established as a true, new science paradigm. Something else would have to create the context for this change or Scientific Revolution as Kuhn called them.

Old science paradigms live at least as long as the eminent older scientists who made their reputation and remain in their field. They NEVER accept the new science paradigm at all. As their numbers dwindle, they become the hold outs of the ancient regime of the overthrown science paradigm.

Something else must occur in society to give a social context to the change, to make what used to be the best current science paradigm into old-fashioned and obsolete belief of those not current with what is now important. Often the turn of a new century is required with its repudiation of the prior century.

Then and only then, with the vast majority of those working professionally in a field of science, publishing in professional journals using the new science paradigm, training students in textbooks written from the new science paradigm will a new myth appear to explain this scientific revolution as the triumph of new experimental results 'disproving' the prior science paradigm.

There NEVER actually is a crucial experiment performed that convinced anyone of the empirical truth of the new science paradigm. The established professionals committed to the old science paradigm, just fade away and are ignored more and more as they disappear from active professional life.

New science paradigms are built upon myth stories taught in textbooks to justify the transition which too often is not based on revolutionary new discoveries or crucial experiments, but just on new insights into what better fits to the fashion of this new social trend with its repudiation of the old trend as clear error now resolved. The general assumption continues that once that prior error is now corrected, science has achieved its goal of Absolute Truth now and forever.

Kuhn reviewed prior and now discarded beliefs or science paradigms. He saw anomalies and inconsistencies in current theory, but loyally dismissed them. In his earlier book,The Copernican Revolution he notes: "Perhaps by mere co-incidence, the spatial concepts embodied in Einstein's general theory of relativity are, in important respects, closer to Aristotle's than to Newton's..And...may like Aristotle's and unlike Newton's, be finite." (p.99).

The basic reality remained that our Terra Firma, bedrock solid, fixed Earth remained at the core of implicit scientific belief right up to and through Einstein's work with just an adjustment that in calculations the Earth and Sun changed places in the same fixed system.

How could scientists deal with putting rockets in space and to the planets while still assuming that really we live on the ancient bedrock fixed Earth with a mysterious force of gravity? Turns out it is easy if you are part of an academic community that maintains that bit of doublethink.

Although it is clear now that we have moved on from the 1904 repudiation of the 19th century to new observations that there was a unique Big Bang and everything is in explosive, tumbling motion without any fixed anything at all, no new science paradigm has been established. No new celebrity best seller has become established. Science remains in the make-do compromise phase of epicycles and anomalies.

Without our current Big Bang Theory of total motion it is easier to think in the old Aristotle model and just adjust it for the simpler heliocentric calculations and gravitational field that might also be explained by complex and little understood equations of motion. Various equations are used for various situations and the fundamental contradictions implicit remain ignored until the new celebrity best-seller establishes the next science paradigm.

Kuhn never managed to describe exactly what his concept of a science paradigm was exactly. However, he did have a long list of Science paradigms in the early editions of his new book, The Structure of Scientific Revolutions . This list described the Classic best sellers of science and their authors ( e.g. Newton's Principia, Franklin on electricity, Lyle' Geology, Darwin's Origin of Species) as examples of new Science paradigms that had caused scientific revolutions.

My conclusion was that a science paradigm was a science best-seller book that established a new celebrity author. A paradigm science was the fan club of that best seller and its celebrity author which developed its own instruments, journals and textbooks to promote the interests of the fan club and its celebrity best-seller author.This book itself was controversial when first published (and I first read it) in the late 1960's. By the time Kuhn died, it was a well-established science paradigm of the history of science.

Kuhn's book itself was controversial when first published (and I first read it) in the late 1960's. The implication in its thesis that science was not always correct, Absolute Truth, but only the currently accepted belief of the community of professional scientists and science professors was highly controversial.

By the time Kuhn died, it was a well-established science paradigm of the history of science. A small change in emphasis in his book was made to show that a science paradigm was always the generally accepted closest science could reach to Absolute Truth at any time which would be change if and only if a better total theory could be established as a new science paradigm.

Today, it is accepted science paradigm theory that until a new science paradigm work is published and universally accepted the old paradigm remains in effect regardless of how much empirical evidence may accumulate indicating anomalies or even downright errors in the original paradigm.

This was the conclusion of the magazine Scientific American in response to Time Magazine's cover story asking, "Is Freud Dead?" Until a new, science paradigm for psychology becomes totally established, Freud remains the science paradigm for psychology.

Otherwise, it would have to be admitted that science did not have a complete set of science paradigms that explained everything. This would violate the dictum of Laplace from the 18th century that science had now discovered everything important there was to know and therefore the "God hypothesis" was no longer needed.

Much has been discovered since Laplace and the other generals to Napoleon combined military conquest with mathematics to produce mathematical physics. However, the feeling that current science paradigms are Absolute Truth was so impressive it has continued on. Many pieces of earlier science paradigms continue on within new science paradigms, often unnoticed and certainly not acknowledged, but very much there all the same.

Each paradigm or fan club promoted their work as the essential requirement for any one having a professional job in science. Their members worked to create fan merchandise such as instruments to be used to do experiments and measurement according to the insights of their star celebrity. Professional journals and textbooks develop to create the full infrastructure for this classical science.

So how objectively accurate are the established explanations of the current scientific community and their textbooks about how their new science paradigm and related theory replaced the earlier erroneous beliefs. Not at all, they are all phony pseudo-historical retelling of how current folks wish it had been. Any story that says anybody saw their crucial experiment and admitted their prior error is pure myth long after the fact and mostly only in student textbooks.

What more often happens is that a new political and social trend emerges to express the hopes of the first years of a new century. This new hope is found a champion in a science author now declared the celebrity proponent of a "new science paradigm." Quickly instruments are constructed to make measurements in line with the new paradigm. Journals are founded to publish the results of using the new instruments.

The prior problems that can be solved somehow by this new theory are highlighted, those created by this new paradigm are ignored as anomalies to be solved later. If they can't and rather create major problems, then that may be the justification of a future scientific revolution by a new celebrity author in a new century.

T. J. Kuhn noted that although there are claims that a new theory disproved the old theory in some dramatic crucial experiment, that never happens. Folks who believe one paradigm continue to believe it all their lives. What the fan club enthusiasts accepted as the crucial experiment proof made no impression at all on fans of an earlier paradigm.

To understand science paradigms, it is necessary to start back in the early centuries of the recent "modern" millennium when Europe began to reconstruct its own university system based in its Church belief.

These Scholastic monks were elucidating Absolute Truth from their theology. Aquinas conveniently integrated his own mistranslation of Aristotle in this effort. He created various science faculties from the titles of his translation of the ancient editing of the Books of Aristotle, to go along with the Books of the Bible and the works of Plato as the only proper subject matter for students.

Science Paradigms start in the Medieval University

Science paradigms started as part of the medieval attempt at a "modern" education. The medieval Scholastics tried to re-create their vision of Plato's Academy. The Academic University they founded was based upon accepted Christian doctrine.

This doctrine included the notion that Plato was virtually Christian, Socrates was virtually Jesus, and democracy was virtually anarchy by common folk who were truly deserving of being treated as livestock-- protected from predators, fed and then sheared or slaughtered as it benefited their shepherds.

In a universe of belief where every detail was controlled
perfectly by God for the benefit of the Church Divine Right kings,there for no need for any independent thought whether political or scientific. Everything just needed to fit into their current belief system.

The independent thought and political freedom of ancient Athens was not even a distant memory in the middle ages. They were not Christian, so unless like Plato their philosophy was called almost Christian, everything they said or did was evil, bad and only fit to be destroyed.

Everything before was only to be replaced as soon as possible by works by proper Christians. Better work it was hoped, but in a pinch any Christian work was better than the best pagan. One of the great controversies of the 12th century, and again in the Renaissance, flared over this contest. Those who were loyal saw good only in Christian work. Those who could appreciate quality found the centuries of Ancient Greek culture far better than the sad state of Christian Europe in the Dark Ages

Eventually, the excellence of the Ancient Greek culture was appreciated, though only after it had been "corrected" to more "modern" interpretations. Part of what got lost in translation were the limitations and fantasies built into the so-called Socratic philosophers as interpreted by St. Thomas Aquinas.

Consider the real works of Plato
and the Secret of his mentor Socrates

The modern academic University of the 13th century was built around a library of officially approved books, starting with the Bible, the complete works of Plato with Socrates cast as the unique epitome of ethical philosophy (not the PTSD ravaged disabled vet he was), and the new mistranslation of the elegant Greek rhetoric of Aristotle, edited classically into a number of books as a set of separate and distinct "sciences" (Latin scientia or book).

The official library of all approved knowledge became even more important with the terrible trauma of the Black Death of the 14th century. The ranks of thinking or even literate persons died off massively, leaving only the library books intact and unaffected.

Science paradigms became the magical tomes, surviving unaffected the horrors of the Plague, and all that was left of prior intellectual achievement. Who would be professors teaching these science paradigms? What books could be added to the official library as new science paradigms? How would academic decisions be made after the horrors of the Black Plague?

The overall organization had to remain as structured in the 13th century--no one dared think about more than a single book at a time in the difficult years recovering from the Black Death. The work of Aquinas remained the structure of the "modern University."

The classical books of Aristotle were to become science paradigms. Aquinas knew Aristotle needed to be describing how the Christian God constructed the universe, so he made it so.

Mistranslating Aristotle was easy for Aquinas, he knew no Greek and nothing about ancient Athens. He worked with a Greek reading monk to create the new Aristotle, a philosopher like Plato the almost Christian not as a great pagan teacher of forensic rhetoric to be used in democratic political and legal argument of the Ancient Greek polis or city-state.

Instead Aquinas translated each traditional book of Aristotle as a separate and distinct, isolated science of the world as created by the Christian God. The set of Books of Aristotle, originally edited from the Logic as premises to the actual classes Aristotle taught in Rhetoric as final tome, became the set of sciences for the new "modern" Church university of the 13th century.

Thus, the original science paradigms of the "modern" university of the 13th century were the Bible, the Summas of Aquinas on theology the Queen of the sciences, Plato's works as ultimate philosophy about the unique, Christlike Socrates as the sole source of ethical principles and debate method, and the Books of Aristotle recast as the faculties of Science.

The elegant Greek rhetoric concerning animals as examples of how climate causes adaptation in animals as it does in the constitutions of states became the Science of Biology. Later scholars noted how Aristotle's biology was organized in terms of the grammar of Ancient Greek without suspecting that was what Aristotle actually taught--not biology but rhetoric.

Aristotle's elegant arguments about non-eternal, non-celestial bodies such as mortal creatures that moved and changed became the science of physics. The book of arguments considered by ancient editors to be premises or next to that book became the science of Metaphysics.

The book about the conventional wisdom accepted in Athens of Aristotle's day of the celestial mechanics of the eternal cycling lights in the sky became the science of the heavens, meteorology, astrophysics, etc. A great goal of the medievals was to have some Christian write some book which could replace this pagan science.

Eventually, the great decisions were made in the new "modern" way--that is, to accept the ways things are now or "modern" from the Latin phrase modus hodie. The great change was to avoid, ignore and deny the recent horrors, turn away from the prior ways that are now lost forever and turn to the fantasies of a better future.

The pattern was set for the entire "modern" millennium from 1001CE to Y2K (2000CE) to turn away from prior losses and problems by developing deep denial and instead looking out to the best marketing fantasy of what eventually could become in the future.

In the 11th century, the glorious future was to declare Crusades to go off and conquer the superior wealth and culture of the Muslim Empire in the Holy land. In the 12th and 13th century the glorious future was to translate the Greek texts learned about from the Arabs to integrate them into the "modern" Christian universities.

In the rebirth or Renaissance after the Black Death, new lands with better resources to conquer and exploit led to tradition of foreign conquest, occupation, exploitation of natural resources and native peoples. These assaults never fully managed to capture the truly glorious future expected, so greater conquests at a faster pace and greater exploitation kept being sought.

Since the recent failures were always to be turned away from, denied and ignored while the future was to be painted in glorious fantasy without any problems or failures any more, any true correction or adjustment even was impossible.

The fundamental science paradigms based upon Aquinas' mistranslation of Aristotle remain to this very day, 2008 CE with only the slightest adjustment by the science paradigms of Newton and Einstein, but more about those details later.

The conquest attitude continues from the 11th century, though it is forever and all ways making terrible consequences that are always being turned away from, ignored, denied and distracted from toward a fantasy future. That is the subject of my pages on postmodern science and the better alternative through sunshine and Planet Earth realizations.

The crusader, conquest brutality of exploitation and destruction of all that isn't part of your beliefs continued through the various frontiers of the globe. Now all the pollution that was simply to disappear when exhausted off your local property has suddenly reappeared from a new and unexpected territory--the so-called environment.

What is the environment? Simply the clear disproof of the entire, now obsolete "modern" "academic" view of the 13th century that only what was isolated in your focus mattered, and whatever was discarded out of your property limits would be taken care of by the Divine. Everything from that medieval view is total nonsense. Until all the simplistic mathematics and foolish science paradigms are replaced nothing but global catastrophe looms before us.

The attitude of denial now combined with fantasies for the future set the stage for the new science paradigms of the modern world. The first desires were for new science discoveries published by Christians to replace the sciences of Aristotle. However, this also set up conflict with the new official professors of Aristotle who enjoyed their monopoly upon all legitimate knowledge.

New science paradigms were controversial to the official professors of Aristotle as long as the Catholic Church ruled both the government and the appointment of new professors. Commercial success made it possible for the mercantile folks around the North Sea to break free in their religion and their governments.

This was the great innovation of the new Eighteenth century Enlightenment. With political power came the new science paradigms of Newton--a fanatical supporter of Protestant religion and English Protestant government. Newton's science paradigms were not the best science, but they were politically established and all other thought denied and suppressed wherever British power ruled.

Only in the 20th century (World War I) did it become possible to actually build the cars, trucks, airplanes, and submarines envisioned by Roger Bacon in the 13th century. In the intervening years, only his basic notion for a piston engine, the gunpowder filled tube with a lead ball in it was developed as guns and artillery.

In the world of guns and fossil fuel engine vehicles, new science paradigms were sought as the denial required alternative to admitting the prior science paradigms weren't very good. Commercial success came to rule, so new science paradigms were based upon best-selling authors of new books with associated fantasy instruments that could generate sales volumes to prove their value and importance.

What we call modern science paradigms begin with Galileo who followed his father's footsteps noting that if you observe the actual world around you the results are different from what was translated as Aristotle science and taught by official Church University professors.

Galileo's father did his research in music, which no one noticed. His distinguished first son Galileo of the family Galileo used a telescope he was sent from the Netherlands to see the craters of the Moon and the moons around Jupiter. He used his fame from his discoveries to become a celebrity and sealed his position by dedicating the moons of Jupiter to his patron Cosmo di Medici.

This became a momentous decision, since Galileo used his celebrity to live the good life rather than do serious mathematical work of a professor expected to design fortifications for the newly rambunctious Italian states. When Cosmo died, Galileo was a celebrity without a patron--or any more new moons to dedicate to get one.

One miffed clerk fudged the documents that became the Trial of Galileo by the scientist turned Pope so that Galileo was condemned. The system of Church thought police got him, although others tried to keep him just barely able to survive and continue his work.

The structure of the modern university orthodoxy based upon its official library and the system of science paradigms based upon celebrity authors of best-selling new books was now established.

After Galileo the development of new science paradigms had more to do with the magic of the calendar than with the latest discovery published hot off the press. Mendel's genetics research was published in the mid-19th century but only became prominent when in the first years of the 20th century (1901)it was cited by several other researchers.

Science texts say that it must have been too hard to find Mendel's article in an Italian journal, but they don't note any new index of 1901. The notion that Scientific Revolutions occur as part of the popular celebration of a new century is the deep dark secret evaded by all rational science history.

In the 19th century, work such as Mendel's on isolated, pure bred seeds was considered unnatural. In the first years of the 20th century, eager for novelty from the natural history of before, Mendel's work was almost laboratory results, exactly what the new century most appreciated.

Darwin's Natural Selection is based upon simple logic from Malthus' essay on Population: More offspring are born than can survive. Those offspring that do survive produce more offspring that increase exponentially. Which offspring survive? Those best able to find food, avoid predators or whatever it takes to live long enough to have later generations offspring.

Therefore the siblings better adapted to their local niche will survive better than those who aren't. If the niche changes, then another set of traits may be best able to succeed. That justifies the range of variation as insurance for survival as the niche changes.

Why such controversy over such simple logic? Actually, it was Lyle's Geology that was the big deal in the 1850's when Darwin published. Lyle said that mountains formed all the time from natural processes through time. That contradicted Genesis' account of 6 Days of Creation just before Adam and Eve and then Abraham,etc.

Darwin, being trained as an Anglican minister, knew the limits of acceptable notions, so he downplayed natural selection in favor of the Herbert Spencer slogan "survival of the fittest" which signified progress and possible Divine judgment or favor involved.

Newton's work, some say based upon an illustration in a work of Galileo's to explain how the Earth could move and not throw everyone off, became the basis of Newtonian physics and his Law of Gravitation. This equation seems to describe a magical innate force emanating from matter than attracts all other matter at all distances all the time in a manner Newton recognized was not science but superstition.

However, by 1701 Newton's work was part of the claims of British superiority over the Catholic Pope in Europe and the French King so it became part of the new wave of 18th century British might. It is only now that the Big Bang Theory is accepted that it is clear that Newtonian gravity is nonsense. The explanation of gravity from the Big Bang is part of the exposition of how astrology works and is explained by the dot patterns on dice.

Learn truly new explanation for gravity and astrology

The set of science paradigms we know come out of the early centuries of the "modern" millennium of 1001 to 2000 CE and thethe medieval University based upon mistranslations of Plato and Aristotle. Science paradigms reflect the politics and timing of new centuries though timing and the change of centuries are barely recognized still in modern science.

The original Science paradigms upon our Planet Earth stem from the work of Pythagoras and the global intellectual awakening of the 6th century BCE with the Taoism of Lao Tzu, the Awakening of the Buddha Siddhartha, the individual horoscopes of Summeria and the new god born of mortal woman Dionysus (later recast as Christ.

That science paradigm of the ancient Global Awareness of the integrated Planet Earth Topography/Sunshine Celestial Mechanics is mapped symbolically through the Pythagorean Tetraktys or the total philosophical analysis through the four perspectives of the Monad--or everything in one circle, Dyad--the dichotomy of polar opposites, Triad--the narrative process from beginning through middle to ultimate, and Tetrad or double dichotomy or analysis through the grid of perpendicular axes.

This Pythagorean mapping underlies all the timing analogs of the Global Awareness of the 6th century BCE--dice cubes, horoscopes, and the hexagrams of the I Ching. Information and understanding is easily available to any and all who take themselves out of the cloistered classroom or laboratory and explore the world outside with its Sun and Stars rising and setting in regular rhythms.

Put a pair of dice in Your palm and open up to the vast Cosmos both overhead and within YOUR easily accessible if you watch. This is the heart of the full Stars and Dice Process--become a free-thinking adult Captain of your own ship upon the Cosmic tides of timing, master of YOUR own destiny.

The original science paradigm is Pythagorean Tetraktys explaining symbolism through dice cubes, astrology, and the hexagrams of the I Ching (Flux Tome).

Learn about the Tetraktys and King Wen Sequence of I Ching

Check out the better alternative and
the reality of silly machines like mechanical clocks

The new science paradigms of this new millennium we have just embarked upon will not have to be invented from scratch. They will have to be built upon the ashes of the Dark Ages and the "Modern" denial of the prior millennium.

The new insights will develop from the consideration of the ancient integration of science, philosophy, mathematics, and personal growth which have been with us all for many millennia. These insights were denied, overwhelmed, and destroyed wherever they were found, captured and put to fire and sword.

Yet they remain in every society upon the face of the Earth. Truth lives despite the best efforts of the ruling armies of occupation to have only their views allowed to anyone. Surprisingly, the general principles of all indigenous cultures are the same. It is a universal knowledge that lives in harmony with the Sunshine and Planet Earth that sustains and energizes all life.

These general principles were known in Western culture through the work of Pythagoras. Pythagoras supplies us with the number patterns of the dice cubes which can be used to understand all the systems around the world of his time. The global awakening of the 6th century BCE is the fundamental thesis of how to live in harmony with our Planet Earth.

The modern millennium of Crusades, international colonial exploitation and science paradigms based upon best-selling celebrity authors is the anti-thesis of how to live upon the Planet Earth. These celebrities gained popular fan clubs as they expressed the new trends of their new centuries.

Now in this new millennium we need to return to Pythagoras and learn the new synthesis that transcends ancient Pythagorean insights and modern horrors for the survival of our children over these next tumultuous decades. We don't have the luxury of centuries any more.

Check Out the Root of all Science and Philosophy

Science paradigm Celebrity Stars are archetypes of their Calendar Timing

• Galileo 17th century--the Dutch telescope


• Newton 18th century and the English break with Continent and Pope


• Carnot 19th century modern (after Napoleon)Thermodynamics his good work stolen by hacks for idolatrous glory


• Darwin (1848 revolution to overthrow Church political power) and partial independence of mechanist science from Genesis


• Einstein (20th century physics) and the start of 20th century


• Freud (20th century cultural liberation)rebuke to Victorianism (actually from Napoleon) and embrace of Sherlock Holmes narratives Aristotle’s De Anima now The Psychology


Scientific revolutions occur when a new crop of younger scientists who prefer the new paradigm finally replace the older faculty and the general opinion of the “scientific community” changes only as the make up of that professional community changes as old guard retires and are replaced by a different generation.



There are two basic divisions in the best sellers and celebrity stars making up the structure of scientific revolutions.
The old guard marking new calendar timing revolutions to mark major changes in culture and society.
What happens when the calendar moves on to its next page leaving the science paradigm of the previous timing out of date? In 1901 it was clear that folks desperately wanted to shut the door on the prior century shaped by Napoleon and claiming to have discovered everything for all time.



However, there was no new insight into the System of the Universe in the first years of the twentieth century. Biological researchers in 1901 went to the library to re-discover the genetics work of Mendel. He had worked with isolated, pure-bred seeds which were out of favor with the natural history perspective of his nineteenth century. He fit exactly into the new notion of isolated laboratories discovering general principles. No one had time to establish such labs and run 100-generation pure-bred samples, but Mendel had in the mid-19th century and been ignored.



Two papers were written in 1901 citing Mendel's forgotten old papers, quickly establishing him as the genetics science paradigm for the new century. New paradigms don't require new work born in the new era, just rediscovery of old work now suddenly brought to bear on the new needs for the next science paradigm.



We see in Freud what happens with the science paradigm system of Kuhn when the world makes a mistake. Once established in the early years of the 20th century, the science paradigm of Freud is stuck in place since there is no means to admit error. The whole science paradigm system arose in the 20th century and is still very new.



Barack Obama represents a new reality of timing for our world. As the 20th century was retarded in its beginning until the Kaiser was able to widen the Kiel canal to allow his High Seas Fleet to reach the high seas until the summer of 1914, the new millennium had to wait for the election of Barack Obama to signal the end of the old System in the various meltdowns of 2008.



The new science paradigms are suddenly coming into focus as reality moves on leaving the old assumptions of the static Crystal Spheres or Magical Clockwork behind in the continuing momentum of the Big Bang. The secret of Thomas Jefferson's invention of the United States to the Gemini Rising birth chart is being revealed since Barack Obama's horoscope is the living embodiment of that 2am birth time.



The economic meltdowns at the tail end of the Bush43 conservative attempt to hold on the 20th century and the tired expectations of the Conservative Agenda has brought to light the fundamental nonsense of Adam Smith and his celebrity paradigm masking his ignorance of Dr. Quesnay's Physiocrat economics.

The beginning of this new millennium will bring more of these new science paradigms into the light as the cockroaches of the old system scurry for cover as they are discovered and chased by the angry populace tired of their ruining things.



The collapse of celebrity paradigms today
Adam Smith laissez faire fails in 2008

The New Science Paradigm Celebrities
In the New World Invented by
Thomas Jefferson

The Discovery of Uranus and measurement EMF radiation from the planets brought a new awareness of astrology as a new science.
But it was actually the earlier, unknown and unheralded invention of American Democracy by Thomas Jefferson himself virtually alone which opened the gateway to these new science paradigm celebrities.


.
• Thomas Jefferson 2 AM July 4th 1776 (the use of technology to invent the United States of America)as the rebellion against the global market exploitation economic system.


• Adam Smith—1776 the Englishman to steal from the first economist--Dr. Quesnay and pervert his insights.


• Napoleon 1801 and the modern occult myth of the Mad Scientist out to conquer the world
  Occult teaching stories and myths—turned into various Cold War funding propaganda.


• Piaget (post WWII)The discovery that humans are capable of various epistemology schemas.
  Conservatives and liberals arise from different Piaget stages of understanding.


• Marc E. Jones, bringing ancient Neo-Pythagorean perspective
  into the 20th century especially after the
  Great Depression (Discovery of Pluto).


• E.O. Wilson (1968 cultural revolution reaction) and the triumph of his love of termites over simple reason


• Kuhn (1960’s breakdown of academic façade) becomes his own paradigm star when his work used to maintain status quo not recognize scientific revolutions


• Kegan (glimmers of the world before and post modern) New perspectives
  for this new century, millennium and New Great Age
  which broke into human consciousness 9/11/2001--Nov 4th 2008.


• YOU--Youth of the first century of this New Great Age 2001-4000 C.E.
  Narrative lyricists able to publish your
  insights into Internet text and multi-media video.


The old guard scientists found ways to use their science paradigms to explain away all the anomalies and new explanations of the new (and generally younger) fans. The structure of scientific revolutions is about how the community of professional scientists changes as a new generation takes over the positions and the older generation is replaced not by their loyal students, but others.
Sinatra fans never change their allegiance to Elvis and Elvis fans are simply overwhelmed by their younger Beatles’ mania fans. A new generation takes over the prime marketing demographic and their sales volume just pushes the older generation’s fan club off center stage. It is exactly the same with science paradigms. They are loyal fan clubs based upon youthful enthusiasm clung to forever.


It is the enthusiasm for this new generation to be marked by a new science paradigm that makes a book at the right time into a science paradigm with a professional scientist and academic fan club or Science Revolution. The calendar timing is the most important factor in these new science developments, though rarely mentioned in the official textbooks.



Einstein is a recent and most clear-cut example. He graduated his physics studies in the last decade of the 19th century. Although many stories abound, lots by his own dissembling, he was a good student and a major candidate for academic physics positions. However, he could not manage a single recommendation for anything in his field. The sole reason was his belief in the existence of atoms and molecules.



In chemistry atomic theory and molecular models had been established for more than a century. In physics, thermodynamics with its basis in the piston steam engine which had obviously changed the world had prevented any acceptance for theories that involved entities that could not be seen.



The notion that water was made up of molecules that took different phase relationships between steam gas and liquid water and then solid ice was too much speculation. The power of the steam engine was obvious, as were pressure and temperature—what more did objective modern science need to believe?



In less than a decade in the new 20th century, Einstein is given his Ph D for the design of an experiment to prove officially the existence of molecules. Other of his papers about the fine structure of light and matter were major works. What changed other than the calendar? Very little.

The vast data from spectroscopes, radiation observations, electrical phenomena, astronomical measurements was no longer to be ignored and resisted just because there was no prior theory to explain it. Physicists in the last years of the 19th century still claimed they had discovered everything important. All that remained for the 20th century was to put a few extra decimal points on their work



In those decimal points, electrical became electronic, gross matter became atomic and subatomic particles, automobiles became airplanes, rockets and space craft. Coal that powered railroads and steam engines became petroleum that fueled aircraft and a petrochemical industry that makes everything from plastics to pharmaceuticals.



---

Return to Top of Science Paradigms Page