Review: "The Structure of Scientific Revolutions" — Everything Is Process

Review: "The Structure of Scientific Revolutions" — Everything Is Process

Everything Is Process

Is there a "right answer" to life? How wonderful it would be if, like a math problem, life had a formula you could follow to reach the correct answer. But unfortunately, there isn't one. Neither the president thundering away in the Blue House nor the homeless person sleeping in the cold drizzle has found the answer to the problem called "life" — both are simply working through it, endlessly.

"How dare you put the president and a homeless person on the same level!" If that thought crossed your mind, I'd ask: on what grounds would you say the president is more admirable? As I argued in my review of The Little Prince, each individual lives inside their own "planet," and on that planet, everyone is their own little prince. Just as the little prince imposed his notion of "purity" on the drunkard, would you impose "diligence" and the greatness of material values on the homeless person?

Thomas Kuhn in The Structure of Scientific Revolutions (charming name — Kuhn, Kuhn) also says: "There is no right answer." According to his logic, even science — which we think of as maximally clear and rational — is nothing more than a limited "correct answer" constructed within a particular paradigm. A correct answer cannot exist without constraints and assumptions; problems that exist outside the paradigm cannot be solved within it. To solve those problems, you have to give up the "correct answer" and transcend the paradigm. In other words, "truth" does not exist — there is only "development." It is a skeptical and relativist view in that it denies the existence of absolute truth. But isn't there something deeply meaningful in the idea that everything in the world — including science — is ultimately nothing more than a "process"?

The Kuhn vs. Popper Debate, and the Realization

In the philosophy of science, Kuhn's ideas sparked wide debate. The Kuhn vs. Karl Popper (and Lakatos) controversy is as famous in the field as a Yankees-Red Sox game. (If you don't see why an argument could be interesting, watch the film Frost/Nixon — an argument alone can make a movie.)

The debates between Kuhn and the positivists, and between Kuhn and Popper/Lakatos, are simultaneously intellectual warfare and play — each side relentlessly attacking the other's logical gaps. How wonderful to have a true rival. Their debates advanced one another dialectically, and through that process Kuhn's Structure itself was refined and sharpened. But if you asked me which side seems more correct? I can only be the old minister Hwang Hui: "Yes, Kuhn, you are right — and yes, Popper, you are right too."

I don't usually like having it both ways or refusing to take a side. But their arguments oppose each other at the level of specifics while grappling with the same fundamental question from a higher plane — which means both can be right. On a question without a definitive answer, if both sides are working through it in rigorous ways, can't both be correct even if the answer hasn't arrived?

A useful analogy: these thinkers are having a debate similar to the dispute between two traditions of Buddhist practice. In Buddhism there are two methods of cultivation: the "Seon school," which emphasizes sudden enlightenment (dono) — an instantaneous awakening; and the "Gyo school," which emphasizes gradual cultivation (jeomsu) — learning doctrine step by step to arrive at understanding slowly. Neither method is inherently superior; after any moment of awakening, there is always another awakening waiting. What matters is the relentless process of cultivation toward enlightenment, regardless of which method you follow.

The debates around Kuhn work the same way. Whether science progresses through gradual accumulation or through dramatic paradigm shifts — this is not the crux of the matter. What matters is that both sides refuse to posit absolute truth and both emphasize "process."

Is Process Always Progress?

Kuhn and the positivists called this process "progress." (Kuhn, to his credit, did not dismiss earlier science as mere superstition.) But is it really always one step forward? The word "progress" generally carries the implication of getting better. But I don't think the process science pursues is "progress." A process is just a process. It's like rowing a boat on the open sea. If there is no "truth," what is "progress" moving toward? It's like someone who has no destination saying "Almost there!"

I believe that a process has only "direction," and that direction can be toward advancement or toward regression. What matters in a process is setting the direction. And just as a ship uses its rudder to navigate the open sea, this "rudder" is social consensus — something close to public opinion. I want to call it "justice," but justice too is constructed, emerging from the context of each era — so I'll say the "rudder" is the public discourse that forms in accordance with the times.

Take nuclear research as an example. Research in natural science doesn't exist on a purely scientific plane — it intersects with human survival, the dangers of genetic modification, the risk of radiation exposure, NIMBY politics, and many other dimensions of social life. To claim that science is neutral and unrelated to its uses is to ignore the fact that issues exist on a multi-dimensional matrix — and to evade responsibility. Suppose nuclear research were conducted freely without public deliberation, and everyone ended up with nuclear weapons. The risk of radiation exposure increases. The risk of nuclear war grows. The Doomsday Clock edges toward midnight. Is that progress?

The Logic of an Age of Transition

I have argued that everything in the world is process, and that what matters in that process is direction. Direction is formed by public consensus and ideally should move in the direction that advances the public good. (Saying "should" does not mean this is a correct answer — it means it is desirable.)

Here Kuhn's concept of "paradigm" re-enters the picture. What if the "public discourse" we think of as our rudder is itself being constructed by a paradigm? Borrowing again from Kuhn: those of us living inside a particular paradigm cannot see beyond the worldview that paradigm presents. Like scientists who faithfully practice "normal science" within their paradigm, we cannot imagine another paradigm. "Puzzles" that lie outside it are excluded, and we become wholly absorbed in solving problems within the existing framework.

In practice, we live inside the paradigms of "democracy" and "capitalism." The public discourse we generate is necessarily constrained by those frameworks. We take democracy and the market as given constants and debate our choices within them.

The problem is that neither democracy nor capitalism is a correct answer. We say ourselves that democracy is only the second-best system available. We are currently facing a "crisis of democracy" and a global financial crisis. This is because, blinded by faith in a particular paradigm, we failed to see the limits approaching. In Kuhnian terms, "normal science" has reached its "crisis" point.

What then? Do we keep debating this crisis within the framework of "normal science"? Or do we move toward a different paradigm? Kuhn would say we need to move — because that is the structure of revolution, and that is progress. (Many people calling for the end of neoliberalism are broadly aligned with Kuhn's position.) But we cannot be certain that a road we have never taken is the right one. It may actually be a regression. The Soviet Union embraced a communist paradigm in order to transcend capitalism — and it turned out to be a step backward. So rather than rushing to declare the end of the current system, we must carefully gather public consensus. We must squarely face the current crisis, clearly recognize the limits of the existing paradigm, and search for alternatives together. There are no right answers. Prediction is impossible. But direction-setting through social agreement guarantees a kind of procedural justice. Isn't everything a process after all? If we cannot know the future, we must be faithful to the present. The accumulation of present "process" will generate the wisdom to overcome the crisis. This is a time when we must think flexibly, cross paradigms, and prepare for the turn.