Scientific theories were discovered long time ago. Scientists have been working tirelessly to prove their research and give a better understanding for their applicability to the world with respect to changes in science revolutions. Long before Newton birth, Aristotelian and Scholastic explanation as expressed in terms of essence material bodies were rejected. Sensory appearances, color, taste and weight were explained in terms of size, shape, position and motion of elementary corpuscles of base matter. Newton’s work upon the normal 17th century with respect to the traditions of scientific practice gave rise to striking examples of effects of paradigm shifts (Kuhn, 2012). During most part of the 17th century assumptions by many scientists led them to believing that the round shape of opium particles enhanced their potential to sooth the nerves about which they move.
17th century brought about acceptance of new explanation practices in the scientific world (Kuhn, 2012). Introduction of mechanic-corpuscular approach in explaining scientific practices replaced the earlier practices in terms of occult qualities which served as an integral part of productive scientific work. This explanation method gave rise to new topics in search of the right explanation of any scientific practice like studying alteration of particulate motion by collision in explaining why neutral corpuscles act on each other only by contact. Huyghem, wren and Wallis efforts to prove the effectiveness of the new practice were backed by Newton who embedded their results in his law of motion. The equal action and reaction of the 3rd law are the changes in quantity of motion experienced by the two parties to a collision. The same changes of motion contributed to the meaning of dynamic force implicit in the 2nd law. It is during the same century that the new paradigm (corpuscular) brought about new problems and a large part of their solution. Since most work of Newton was directed to problem, it embodied standards that were derived from the mechanic-corpuscular world view.
Result of paradigm that resulted from his work therefore brought destructive changes in the new problem and legitimate for science (Kuhn, 2012). Newton’s theory failed to explain gravity, efforts to explain it continued in the 18th century. This proved that paradigm was a constitutive of science. This led to scientist conclusion by the mid-18th century that gravity was innate since innate attractions and repulsions joined irreducible primary properties of matter. In the same century, literature on chemical affinities and replacement series also derived from this super mechanical aspect of Newtonians. It is evident that, changes in standards of governing permissible problems, concepts and explanations can transform a science. On the other hand, non-substantive differences between successful paradigms can be retrieved from history of any science in almost any period of its development. Before chemical revolution, phlogiston a chemist was responsible for explaining why some substances are acidic, metallic, combustible among others. Some of his explanations succeeded. Lavoisier’s reform did away with chemical principles. In the 19th century, failure to explain the qualities of compounds was no indictment of chemical theory.
Proponents of the wave theory of light was shared among scientists’ during this century. Designing a mechanical medium to support light waves was a standard problem for Clerk Maxwell ablest contemporaries. His electromagnetic theory failed to give any account that would support wave light. Maxwell theory was highly rejected but his efforts to prove difficulties to dispense with which enabled the theory to achieve the status of paradigm thus people attitude towards it changed (Kuhn, 2012). His efforts to design ethereal medium in the early 20th century were abandoned. Changes in the scientific world demanded by the adoption of new paradigm led to rejection of many theories until they were proven beyond reasonable doubts. This does not mean that these theories cannot be amended today, if need be, challenge will be created and new scientist will work upon them. For instance, in the 20th century, Einstein in the 20th century succeeded in explaining gravitational attractions. On the other hand, the development of quantum mechanics which originated from the chemical revolution has reserved the methodological prohibition. Considerations of application of the electromagnetic theory is underway.
This is aimed at understanding what electric displacement is. Shifting emphasis from cognitive to normative function of paradigm will enhance better understanding on how these paradigms give form to the scientific life. Paradigm role as a vehicle for scientific theories enlightens the scientists on entities that nature contains and does not contain sand how these entities behave (Kuhn, 2012). The information gathered provides a clear map whose details are elucidated by mature scientific research. When paradigm changes, shifts in determining the legitimacy of problem and solution are realized. Paradigms are not only constitutive of science but are constitutive of nature as well as proved by the revolutions in changes of world view. Historian scientists believe that when paradigm changes, the world changes too which makes scientists to see their world of research from a different angle. Revolution has bought changes in the normal-scientific traditions thus needs to re-educate so as to adapt to the new environment are vital. Revolutionary transformation of vision has proved the change experienced by the world as a result of changes in paradigms.
From this perspective, perceived color, size among other aspects vary with subjects previous training and experience which makes one suspect that paradigm is prerequisite to perception itself. Gestalt demonstrations employed by N.R. Hanson have tried to prove the same. Some historians have discovered transformational changes that they believe in from the scientists’ world. William Hershel’s discovery of Uranus parallels the anomalous card experiment. This proves that the changes in paradigms due to employment of advanced technology results to changes in the entire natures view which led to Lexell suggesting that the orbit initially discovered by Hershel was planetary. During the 17th century, in the history of science, scientists saw mechanical and gravitational rebounding while researching on electric light (Kuhn, 2012). Science revolution brought about modern apparatus which have enabled them see electrostatic repulsion with respect to the same research. Based on transformation of vision, Aristotle and Galileo saw pendulums but interpreted them differently and so is the case of Lavoisier and Priestley with respect to different interpretations on oxygen. It is clear that paradigm has served both the science and philosophy very well. In conclusion, it is evident that shifts in scientific perception are as a result of paradigm changes.