If you’ve heard the term “paradigm” in the context of science or technology, you’re likely hearing ideas downstream of this book. Kuhn gives a whirlwind tour of how science is conducted. He defines a “paradigm” as a set of assumptions and facts that serve as the foundation for normal science. This is the foundational knowledge that is taken for granted. Rather than re-building and re-evaluating the foundations every time we seek to build more knowledge, paradigms act as steady assumptions that allow us to focus on making scientific progress.
From the book: “Under normal conditions the research scientist is not an innovator but a solver of puzzles, and the puzzles upon which he concentrates are just those which he believes can be both stated and solved within the existing scientific tradition.”
While the book defines this idea in order to make a distinction between “normal science” (within a particular paradigm) and “revolutions” (discovery of a new paradigm), it is the former idea that has stuck with me.
There is a specific brand of advice that preaches deep skepticism of ideology. These skeptics believe that you should constantly be challenging your assumptions, your beliefs, and the information in front of you in pursuit of the truth and to do your best work.
My experience has led to the opposite conclusion: great work and great ideas come from keeping your ideology for granted and building from there. It’s impossible to make progress in your own life and work if you are constantly challenging your own ideology. You must think and work within a paradigm to make progress. The alternative is an exhausting and unfulfilling life.
Once you’ve gotten the gist of the thesis, I’d recommend skipping around to the parts you find most interesting. Regardless, this was a mind-altering book for me.