A scientist in a normal science period obtains an experimental result that contradicts a prediction of the ruling paradigm. According to Kuhn, what does she typically do?
AImmediately treats the result as a refutation of the paradigm and advocates for its replacement
BPublishes the anomaly prominently as decisive evidence that the paradigm is false
CInitially attributes the discrepancy to experimental error or failure to apply the paradigm correctly, and preserves the paradigm
DAbandons research in that area until the community formally revises the paradigm
Kuhn's key observation is that scientists treat anomalies as puzzles to be solved within the paradigm, not as refutations of it. They blame experimental error, inadequate instruments, or failure to apply the paradigm's methods correctly — all before questioning the paradigm itself. This tenacity is the normal response, not an aberration. The paradigm is preserved because no paradigm fits all data perfectly, and isolated anomalies are more likely to reflect local errors than foundational failure.
Question 2 Multiple Choice
A student argues: 'Kuhn's view implies scientists are dogmatically irrational — they refuse to give up false theories even when evidence against them accumulates.' What is the best response?
AThe student is correct — Kuhn's normal science describes a systematic failure of scientific rationality
BParadigm tenacity is actually rational: no paradigm fits all data perfectly, and abandoning theories at the first anomaly would make science unstable and prevent the accumulation of genuine knowledge
CThe student is right that tenacity is irrational, but Kuhn celebrates it as pragmatically useful anyway
DScientists in normal science are simply unaware of anomalies, so dogmatism is not the right characterization
Kuhn argues that tenacity is rationally warranted, not a defect. Every paradigm faces unexplained results; if scientists discarded theories at the first sign of trouble, no framework would survive long enough to generate deep predictions and accumulate knowledge. The question is not whether anomalies exist, but when they become serious enough to trigger crisis. Rational tenacity protects productive research programs from premature abandonment.
Question 3 True / False
According to Kuhn, whether an observation counts as an 'anomaly' rather than a minor unsolved puzzle is determined by community consensus, not by logical analysis alone.
TTrue
FFalse
Answer: True
This is one of Kuhn's most distinctive and contested claims. The move from 'puzzle' to 'anomaly' to 'crisis' is not mechanically logical — it involves authority, collective attention, and negotiation within the scientific community. An observation one scientist finds devastating can be dismissed by the broader community as trivial or due to technique. This social dimension distinguishes Kuhn's account sharply from Popper's falsificationism.
Question 4 True / False
A single unresolved anomaly is typically sufficient to trigger a scientific crisis and eventual paradigm shift.
TTrue
FFalse
Answer: False
Kuhn is explicit that crisis requires the accumulation of many anomalies, years of failed attempts by talented scientists to resolve them, and a growing sense that the paradigm's core assumptions are at fault — not a single discrepant observation. The resilience of science to individual anomalies is what allows paradigms to accumulate genuine knowledge. Crisis is a collective and gradual development, not a response to one experiment.
Question 5 Short Answer
Why does Kuhn's account treat paradigm tenacity as rational rather than as a defect of scientific reasoning?
Think about your answer, then reveal below.
Model answer: Because no paradigm fits all data perfectly at any moment — there are always unexplained results and unsolved problems. If scientists abandoned paradigms at the first anomaly, no framework would survive long enough to generate deep predictions, train practitioners, or accumulate systematic knowledge. Tenacity allows the paradigm to work through local difficulties before declaring crisis. The rational question is not whether anomalies exist but whether they have multiplied and resisted resolution long enough to suggest a fundamental failure rather than a solvable puzzle.
This contrasts with naive falsificationism, which treats any counterexample as sufficient to refute a theory. Kuhn's account is more historically accurate: real scientists do not behave as Popper's schema would require, and this behavior is not irrational. Tenacity is the mechanism that gives paradigms enough stability to be genuinely informative, and crisis is the mechanism that eventually breaks that stability when it is no longer warranted.