Theory of the Dynamics of Scientific Paradigms

The study of the lifecycle of a paradigm: its birth in a revolutionary insight, its consolidation during a period of "normal science," its gradual erosion as anomalies accumulate, and its eventual collapse and replacement. This theory looks at the internal and external forces—technological, social, economic—that drive these dynamics, treating science as a historical and sociological process, not just a logical one.

Theory of the Dynamics of Scientific Paradigms Example: The Dynamics of the Newtonian Paradigm followed this path: revolutionary triumph in the 17th century, two centuries of triumphant "normal science" applying its laws, the creeping anomalies of Mercury's orbit and blackbody radiation in the 19th century, and final overthrow by the twin revolutions of relativity and quantum mechanics in the early 20th century.

by Abzugal Nammugal Enkigal February 4, 2026

Scientific Metaparadigm Theory

A framework that seeks to understand and classify the different types of scientific paradigms themselves. It's a paradigm about paradigms. For instance, it might categorize paradigms as reductionist vs. holistic, deterministic vs. probabilistic, or mechanistic vs. vitalistic. It asks: What are the meta-categories that all scientific worldviews fall into? This is a bird's-eye view of the landscape of possible scientific thought.

Scientific Metaparadigm Theory Example: Seeing Darwinian evolution (contingent, historical) and Newtonian physics (deterministic, law-based) as belonging to two different Metaparadigms—one focused on narrative and history, the other on timeless laws—is an act of Scientific Metaparadigm Theory. It helps explain why these fields have such different cultures and standards of proof.

by Abzugal Nammugal Enkigal February 4, 2026

Scientific Picking

The deliberate or institutionalized practice within scientific research of selecting only hypotheses, experimental designs, data, or analyses that are likely to yield a preferred, publishable, or fundable result. This includes p-hacking, HARKing (Hypothesizing After Results are Known), and the file drawer problem (not publishing null results). It corrupts the scientific process by making the literature a curated museum of "successes," not an accurate map of reality.

Scientific Picking *Example: A pharmaceutical company runs 20 trials on a new drug. The two that show a mild positive effect (likely by chance) are published. The 18 showing no effect or harm are filed away. This Scientific Picking creates a public, peer-reviewed "fact" of the drug's efficacy that is a complete statistical mirage.*

by Abzugal Nammugal Enkigal February 4, 2026

Scientific Biases

The broad range of systemic and cognitive prejudices that distort the practice of science. These include publication bias, funding bias, cultural bias in peer review, and theory-ladenness of observation. They ensure that science is not a perfectly objective mirror of nature, but a human institution whose outputs are shaped by social, economic, and psychological forces.

Scientific Biases Example: For decades, Scientific Bias against female physiology meant that heart disease was studied almost exclusively in male subjects, leading to diagnostic criteria and treatments that were less effective for women. The bias was embedded in what was considered a "standard" research subject.

by Abzugal Nammugal Enkigal February 4, 2026

Scientific Apophenia/Pareidolia Theory

The application of these concepts as meta-critiques of the scientific process itself. It suggests that science, in its quest for laws, can sometimes be an institutionalized, refined form of these biases. Scientists may perceive elegant, universal patterns (a "face" in the data) where there is only local noise or complexity, clinging to a beautiful theory long after contradictory anomalies appear, driven by the same deep-seated craving for order.

Scientific Apophenia/Pareidolia Theory Example: Scientific Pareidolia Theory might analyze String Theory. It posits that physicists, staring at the fuzzy data of quantum gravity, have used immensely complex math to perceive a "face" of elegant, vibrating strings in 11 dimensions. The theory's beauty and internal consistency are compelling, but its untestability makes it, in this critical view, the most sophisticated pareidolia in human history—a pattern seen in the clouds of higher mathematics because the mind desperately wants one to be there.

by Abzugal Nammugal Enkigal February 6, 2026

Theory of Scientific Paradigms

The framework, famously articulated by Thomas Kuhn, that science doesn't progress smoothly but through violent revolutions. A scientific paradigm is the constellation of beliefs, values, and techniques shared by a community—it's the rulebook everyone agrees to play by during "normal science." This theory states that when too many anomalies break the rules, a crisis leads to a paradigm shift, where the old rulebook is burned and a new one is written. What was heresy becomes textbook truth.

Theory of Scientific Paradigms Example: For centuries, astronomy played by the Ptolemaic paradigm rulebook (Earth at the center). Copernicus, Kepler, and Galileo were rule-breakers who kept pointing out anomalies. The crisis led to the Copernican paradigm shift—a scientific revolution where the Sun took center stage. Suddenly, the old "obvious truth" became a historical curiosity, and the heretics became the founding fathers of a new game.

by Abzugal Nammugal Enkigal February 6, 2026

Theory of Scientific Dispute

The examination of conflicts within a shared scientific paradigm. These are fights over data interpretation, model accuracy, or technical details, but everyone agrees on the core rules of the game. This is "normal science" arguing over moves, not whether to burn the rulebook.

Theory of Scientific Dispute Example: The current scientific dispute over the best model for dark energy is fierce. All cosmologists share the same paradigm (general relativity, Big Bang cosmology), but they dispute whether dark energy is a cosmological constant, a dynamic field, or a sign general relativity is wrong at its edges. It's a high-stakes family feud with shared DNA.

by Abzugal Nammugal Enkigal February 6, 2026