Various Structures In A Scientific Revolution In John Kuhn's Structure Of Scientific Revolutions

Kuhn argued that there are various structures in a scientific revolution in his book Structure of Scientific Revolutions. Kuhn explained how each field of science goes through these stages by leaps and bounds. The following essay will explain which stage criminology is currently in, how much Kuhn 's argument can relate to criminology and what that means for the discipline.

Scientific Revolutions

Kuhn states that the first stage is the pre-paradigm period, next is the normal science stage, than the crisis period, next is the scientific revolution. The pre-paradigm stage only happens once and multiple theories target a certain problem without a consensus on which is correct. This stage evolves when the scientific community is able to adopted

Kuhn realizes there is still an argument of if social sciences are really as cines, “...debates about whether contemporary social sciences is really a science”(Kuhn, 2012). Social science work with human nature, and many influences that change from time to time and place it place this is why theories cannot be explained in the same way as natural sciences because they are not influenced by the factors of the social world but physics remain constant.

There are major differences with natural and social sciences that makes it difficult to put criminology into the structure of scientific revolutions that Kuhn argues. These differences include the aspect of social science is affected by history, culture and context, and physical sciences like chemistry stays constant. An example of this is that gravity does not change when you go from the 19th century, to the 20th but what is considered criminal or deviant does. Also physical sciences are able to explain events with precise results and criminology has not been able to precisely pinpoint causes of crime

Since many theories have shown evidence to support their claims an integration of theories seems likely. When the best and most efficient aspects of theories are able to be understood they can be used in an integrated theory that may have the most explanatory power to predict criminal behavior and this would be a good candidate for a paradigm to have normal science. There has been theories like Moffitt 's Taxonomy that has used biological and social factors in the model with successful results. For the Taxonomy theory the biological factors induced brain injury and activity, genetic factors, and minor physical anomalies, the social factors included abuse, neglect, socioeconomic status, and parental deviant behavior as well as environmental factors. With advancement in technology and data that allows for understanding of brain and environmental factors it seems likely more theories may start to use this information to better predict and understand