The Structure of Theological Revolutions

Review of The Structure of Scientific Revolutions by Thomas S. Kuhn


Thomas Kuhn (1922-1996) was a specialist in the history of science and held a professorship at the Massachussets Institute of Technology. The Structure of Scientific Revolutions remains his most famous work, which outlined his theory of paradigm shifts. The common view of scientific progress is a gradual growth of knowledge through new discoveries. In contrast, Kuhn argues that the scientific endeavor evolves through paradigm changes.

Kuhn’s paradigm encapsulates everything from the general theory about nature, methodologies, and desired results. Paradigms take root in scientific communities after a pre-paradigm era of a variety of interpretations of the same phenomenon coalesce around a loosely united theory. Once a paradigm is in place, it can still give way to new paradigms after a crisis, which can take a variety of forms, but tends to be an unsolvable puzzle that requires a new paradigm. As a new paradigm tries to unseat a former one, they do not compete directly since they have no common ground. Instead, advocates of a paradigm try to show its superiority through internal consistency and its ability to answer some questions better (though it may overturn the verdict for some formerly solved problems).

Deduced from this paradigm is the nature of science itself. The nature of “normal science,” that is, science done within a paradigm, is problem-solving. A paradigm bequeaths upon a scientific community a set of problems and the acceptable instruments and techniques to solve these problems. Then, the scientist’s task is to slowly flesh out the paradigm by solving these problems.

Kuhn then leads us logically to a rather troubling spot. If the engine behind scientific

“progress” is paradigmatic shifts, then what guarantee can we have that science actually increases true knowledge of the nature of reality? Kuhn casts severe doubt on the ability of science to progress in the sense of getting closer to an objective understanding of reality. Instead, science progresses because the very definition of science is progress—it begs the question. Put another way, we label something a science when we believe it can make measurable progress.

[Image: ]

So art, in the past, was considered a science as the masters perfected techniques to make painting look increasingly realistic. Nowadays, we don’t believe art to be a science because art can take a variety of forms and all are equally valid. Similarly, what we today call philosophy used to be a science, but now we assume a variety of philosophical schools, of which none is necessarily more right than the other, and collectively they explore different aspects. Normal science inherently must show progress since most scientific experiments already know the results they’re looking for; and as more puzzles get solved, there is a measure of success. Unfortunately, normal science does not guarantee that we’re stepping closer to the Real.

This understanding of scientific discovery is very similar to presuppositionalism (or covenant apologetics) in Christian philosophy. Presuppositionalism argues that the Christian and non-Christian worldviews (read “paradigms”) are entirely removed from each other and common ground is lacking. Both exercise reason (read “normal science”), but this reason is merely the outworking of the presupposition, and so there is no appeal to reason as the final court of appeals. What is required to bridge the gulf is conversion/regeneration (read “scientific revolution”), in which the non-Christian acquires a new set of presuppositions.

Hence presuppositionalism is the flower of the Reformed seed, though some prominent Reformed thinkers reject presuppositionalism, such as R.C. Sproul and our very own Schaeffer’s Ghost contributor Justin Hawkins. Total depravity is total; it includes the life of the mind so that it is subject to futility. The Spirit must transform the mind for worldly thinking is foolish, as Christ has chosen the foolish things of the world to shame the wise (1 Cor. 1:27).

Yet contrary to Kuhn’s skepticism toward science’s ability to discover the nature of reality, Cornelius Van Til (father of presuppositionalism) argued that worldviews could prove their veracity via coherence. Van Til argued that a coherence theory of truth was necessary to answer the question of worldview evaluation, since worldviews talk right past each other when left without common ground to anchor debates. And because God is the God of Truth, the Christian worldview alone was thoroughly coherent. All other worldviews end up with internal contradictions.

The Structure of Scientific Revolutions may have been one of the most eye-opening books I’ve read this year. It is accessible to the layman with an amateur background in thinking abstractly. I recommend it to all who find enjoyment in reading philosophy, particularly in epistemology.

For further reading:

  • Van Til’s Apologetic: Readings & Analysis by Greg Bahnsen
  • The Logic of Scientific Discovery by Karl Popper (refuted by Kuhn)


“Dominion and Dynasty”: What the Old Testament is all about
Still Alice: Memory and the self-made woman
Jupiter Ascending: A Real Letdown
“Can you draw out Leviathan with a fishhook?”
  • Justin Hawkins

    Well done, Mr. Kuo. I was myself grimacing at your panegyric to Presuppositionalism all the way until you dropped my name next to R.C. Sproul, then I laughed and laughed. Then my friends in the library scowled at me, and I returned to my typically austere demeanor.

    I maintain my rejection of presuppositionalism based on the fact that it is a weakening of the doctrine of common grace and a confusion of the doctrine of Total Depravity. You were right to note that Total Depravity means that sin has noetic effects, and thus we cannot reason our way to a saving knowledge of God. That said, it certainly does not mean that we are incapable of discovering truth whatsoever. Calvin himself said that through sin any chance of salvifically knowing God is eliminated (apart from regeneration, of course), but that our knowledge of other, non-salvific things is only obscured (for example, that no candy manufacturer to date has been able to perfect the banana taste of their candy, which makes it the nastiest flavor of candy that there is.). But nowhere in scripture do I see it taught that our knowledge of God itself is entirely erased by sin. Even in Romans 1, it is merely suppressed, but never removed entirely. So the “futility” of which Paul speaks is not that they never arrive at truth, but that they never arrive at salvation.

    But contra your assertion that “Christian and non-Christian worldviews are entirely removed from each other and common ground is lacking,” I see scriptural reasons to suggest that there is common ground of reason. Paul’s speech on Mars Hill, for example, cites pagan poets who Paul claims had some clear and true knowledge of God. The rest of his speech is designed to show that the Christian God best accords with the truth of what the pagan poets had identified.

    This is entirely sensible to me because knowledge of God is innate to human nature (as, for example, is the moral law, which I do not hear many presuppositionalists arguing about, which I perceive to be an inconsistency). Presuppositionalism would then seem to hold that nature is entirely effaced—that is, the image of God is removed entirely from humanity. I find that to be false. Rather, sin defaces the image of God. Our mind is clouded, our will is bent, and our appetites are perverted. But the image of God is not destroyed. Sin does not even have the power to do that.