Structure of Scientific Revolution

A place in which can produce a result transformation in their achievements and recently recorded
in textbooks. This aims a concept of science that produce more likely to fit enterprise than an image of
a national culture. It aims a sketch of a quite different that can emerge from historical record. However,
this concept will not be forthcoming if data continue to be sought and examine to answer the
unhistorical stereotype from science texts. Those texts have their example like often seen to imply the
content of science and its be a typical example by the observations, laws ang theories. And it simply
the one illustrated by manipulative techniques that use in gathering data and logical operations.
Scientist are the men who striven to contribute one or to a particular constellation. Scientific
development becomes the piecemeal process in which items have been added, singly and in
combination and its history becomes the discipline that chronicles both successive increments and
obstacle that have inhibited their accumulation.

Historians have two main tasks. First, they must determine what a man and what point in time
each contemporary scientific fact, law and theory was invented. Second, they must describe and
explain error, myth and superstition. However, a few historians find it more difficult to fulfill the
functions that assign to them because they discover that adding research makes it harder and not
easier to answer different questions. A few suspect that the questions are simply to ask and they feel
that those current views of nature were less scientific nor more the product of human idiosyncrasy
than those current today. If these out-of-date beliefs are to be called myths, then it can produce same
methods and reasons that now lead to scientific knowledge.

The result of these doubts, historians begun to ask sort of questions and they attempt to display
historical integrity of science in its own time. They ask not about the relation of Galileo’s views but
rather about relationship between his views like his teachers and successors. Meaning, they insist
studying the opinions that gives possible fit to nature. Observations and experiences can and must
drastically restrict the range of admissible scientific belief or else there would be no science. Effective
research scarcely begins before a scientific community thinks it has acquired firm to answer and these
answers come to exert a deep hold on that they can do much research and directions which proceeds
at any given time.

Arbitrariness has an important effect on scientific development. In normal science, scientist spend
almost in their time and knows what the world is like and derives from community’s willingness to
defend that assumption. Normal science suppresses fundamental novelties because of its basic
commitments as those commitments retain an element of the arbitrary and it ensure that novelty shall
not be suppressed for very long. The most examples of scientific revolutions are the famous episodes
in scientific development that have been labeled before. Therefore, in sections IX and X, we shall deal
repeatedly with the major turning points associated with the names of Copernicus, Newton, Lavoisier
and Einstein. Each of them necessitated the community’s rejection of one timed-honored scientific
theory in favor of another incompatible with it. Each produced a consequent shift and each
transformed the scientific imagination in ways that we shall ultimately need to describe as a
transformation of the world within which scientific work was done.

A fundamental thesis of this essay that they can also be retrieved from the study of many other
episodes that were not obviously revolutionary. The invention of other theories evokes the same
response from some specialist on whose area of special competence they impinge. For these men, new
theory implies a change in rules governing the prior practice of normal science, therefore, it reflects
upon much scientific work they have successfully completed. This is why a new theory special its range
of application is seldom. The commitments that govern normal science specify not only what sorts of
entities the universe contains but also by implication. Though the point will require extended
discussion, that a discovery like oxygen does not simply add one more item to the population of
scientist world.
 Prehistory tell us how people live, not when or where they live. The greatest majority of people
today still live historically and rely on ICTs to record and transmit data specially energy-related ones.
There are some people around the world who already living hyper historically which their data
processing for the maintenance of welfare, personal well-being and overall flourishing. Their
economies rely on information-based assets, information-intensive services, and etc. The nature of
conflicts provides a sad test for the reliability of human evolution. The life-cycle of information includes
occurrence, recording, transmission, processing and usage.
Just a few years ago, researcher’s estimated that humanity had accumulated 12 exabytes of data
until commodification of computers.