ific method by which we discover new knowledge, formulate new world views, and reject views that are proven invalid by increased understanding. As Cannistraro and Reich (1999) maintain, ôIn the 17th century use of this scientific method produced a revolution in European intellectual attitudes, as scientists and thinkers such as Galileo, Descartes, and Newton laid the foundations of modern science. From then on, theologians and philosophers alike were faced with a new authorityùscientific truth, objectively demonstratedö (573). Kuhn professes that science is continuously evolving in a manner similar to the state; whereby the shifting from normal science to crisis to scientific revolution back to a period of stability (normal science) mirrors the progression from the stable social/state regime to a period of crisis followed by another stable social/state regime. Paradigms are incommensurable to other paradigms or competing theories because competing proponents of specific paradigms cannot accept core values included in opposing paradigms. Because of differences in values, changes in meaning and ontological change, Kuhn argues that paradigms are incommensurable. Different paradigms exist in different worlds from each other. Thus different scientific or philosophical communities often have different realities to which their paradigms refer.
Within his description of science and scientific change, Kuhn introduces elements of both a sociological and intellectual nature. Because the very nature of a scientific community refers to a shared communication among members, there are obviously sociological factors that impact the science and scientific progress emanating from them. For example, different scientific communities share specific symbolic generalizations among members, like E=mc2. These symbolic generalizations are accepted as truth by members of the specific scientific community. There are also certain metaphysical beli...