Rather Than Being An Interpreter,

It Is, I Think, Particularly In Periods Of Acknowledged Crisis That Scientists Have Turned To Philosophical Analysis As A Device For Unlocking The Riddles Of Their Field. Scientists Have Not Generally Needed Or Wanted To Be Philosophers.

The Historian Of Science May Be Tempted To Exclaim That When Paradigms Change, The World Itself Changes With Them.

Its Assimilation Requires The Reconstruction Of Prior Theory And Re-evaluation Of Prior Fact, An Intrinsically Revolutionary Process That Is Seldom Completed A Single Man And Never Overnight

As In Political Revolutions, So In Paradigm Choice--there Is No Standard Higher Than The Assent Of The Relevant Community. To Discover How Scientific Revolutions Are Effected, We Shall Therefore Have To Examine Not Only The Impact Of Nature And Of Logic, But Also The Techniques Of Persuasive Argumentation Effective Within The Quite Special Groups That Constitute The Community Of Scientists.

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.