The theory of revolutionary science offered by Thomas Kuhn maintains science does not advance in a direct fashion as new knowledge is added to previous knowledge. Instead, science occurs in revolutions or "paradigm shifts" that represent the interaction of three phases or stages of scientific inquiry (Smith, 2008, p. 1). As Smith (2008) notes, "Paradigm shifts are not just a matter of gradual accumulation of knowledge...there are things that are lost as well as gained" (p. 1). Prescience is the first stage in which a generally accepted "paradigm" of scientific inquiry is absent. This stage leads to a period of "normal science" in which a "majority of workers are working within a certain paradigm...those who are not can, perhaps, be dismissed as cranks" (Smith, 2008, p. 1). This implies there is only one appropriate paradigm per field during a period of normal science.
Scientists work to improve the validity of the paradigm through "puzzle-solving," but efforts to refute the dominant paradigm are not a focus (Smith, 2008, p. 1). Through the process of puzzle-solving, Kuhn argues a number of anomalies related to the dominant paradigm arise, which leads to a crisis whose outcome establishes a new period of normal science. Because those who do not accept or work within the framework of the dominant paradigm are considered cranks and because efforts are not made to refute the dominant paradigm, critics of Kuhn's theory of revolutionary science see it as implying science is irrational and ruled by a "mob-mentality."
The fact that the dominant paradigm in a field is not open to refutation because it is generally accepted as valid by most working in the field makes Kuhn's notion of science irrational to those like Popper. Popper thinks this "mob mentality" of holding onto the validity of a paradigm rather than trying to refute it is irrational. However, Kuhn argues against this criticism. Kuhn argues t...