Normal science is a period of scientific exploration under a stable paradigm.

In this

period, the paradigm states what facts are important and researchers undergo specific tasks to

“mop-up” the paradigm. Assuming the paradigm is correct, a period of normal science aims to

gather data, match the theory with data, and articulate the theory. In undertaking these tasks, they

are not trying to confirm or disconfirm the paradigm, they simply aim to make it more precise.

In articulating the theory, deciding what data is important, and matching the theory to the

data, scientists might need to adjust the auxiliary hypotheses. The main hypotheses of a theory

set by the paradigm is a possible explanation for a paradigm. On the other hand, an auxiliary

hypothesis is a hypothesis that is needed in order for the main hypothesis to be true; they help the

main hypothesis reach the conclusion. Take McConnell’s experiment on worms for example.

For the hypothesis that “Worms can be trained,” he had auxiliary hypotheses concerning

important variables such as species and size of worms, temperature, strength of light, the time of

day the worms were trained, etc. McConnell argued that these were crucial for the success of the

experiment, so when other scientists failed to recreate his results, critics blamed the hypothesis

but McConnell blamed the incorrect replication of the auxiliary hypotheses, and held his belief in

his original hypothesis. Modifying these hypotheses are effective in “mopping-up” a paradigm.

Kuhn argues that paradigms are essential to normal science because normal science

concerns this idea of “mop-up” work. A paradigm is a scientific achievement that the scientific

community takes for a period of time to supply a foundation of practice. Examples of paradigms

include Ptolemaic astronomy, Copernican astronomy, Einstein’s theory of relativity, etc.

Kuhn states that there are two essential features of a paradigm: it must be unprecedented

and open-ended. It must be unprecedented so that it drives followers away from a rival paradigm.

If it was too similar, people wouldn’t be attracted to the new one and it wouldn’t become widely
accepted. If a paradigm is open-ended, there’s space to perform research. If everything in the

paradigm is solved, scientists can’t work on problems or “mop-up” the paradigm. Likewise,

scientists won’t be able to engage in data collecting, matching the data, or articulating the theory.

Normal science can be described as a “puzzle solving” period in which scientists

accumulate as much information as possible and solve the challenges associated with the

paradigm. In a puzzle, there is a guaranteed solution (along with rules to discern what constitutes

a solution), and there are rules governing the solving of the puzzle. Paradigms are essential to

normal science as they present these two features: it provides the promise of a solution (similar

to how a jigsaw puzzle has an end picture), and it provides the rules to get to that solution, which

gives a kind of structure to scientists working in a period of normal science (e.g. puzzle pieces).

Different scientific works yield different structures: ancient scientific works tend to be

long, self-contained, and accessible to the general public, and contemporary scientific works tend

to be in the form of short articles that are impenetrable to laymen. Kuhn would argue that

contemporary works are under a shared paradigm, and there are many theoretical assumptions

taken for granted: vocabulary, methodology, etc. In terms of paradigms, when someone is

subscribed to one, they accept everything in it. This is helpful to scientists as they do not have to

explain every assumption in the scientific field as the people reading the works are already

familiar: scientists are able to be direct, focused, and efficient in explaining their findings. Kuhn

would also say that ancient scientific works are in a pre-paradigmatic period and must argue

from scratch. These works are easier to read because terminology, theoretical assumptions, and

methodology are explained, but the works tend to be long. However, when there is no paradigm

in place, everything must be explained. For example, with Newton’s law of gravity, terms such

as gravity and Newton’s calculations must be explained as there is no foundation set in place.