Crises do not always lead to new paradigms

A crisis is a necessary prerequisite for a paradigm to change, but the presence of a crisis does not always result in a changed paradigm: ① The current paradigm may discover a resolution to the crisis; ② The problem may persist, resisting the formation of a new paradigm to account for it; or ③ The crisis may precipitate the emergence of a new paradigm.

And all crises close in one of three ways. Sometimes normal science ultimately proves able to handle the crisis-provoking problem despite the despair of those who have seen it as the end of an existing paradigm. On other occasions the problem resists even apparently radical new approaches. Then scientists may conclude that no solution will be forthcoming in the present state of their field. The problem is labelled and set aside for a future generation with more developed tools. Or, finally, the case that will most concern us here, a crisis may end with the emergence of a new candidate for paradigm and with the ensuing battle over its acceptance.^[1]

#paradigms