ABSTRACT
How and why would we bring about a revolution in geographic thought? To gain some insight into this question it is worth examining how revolutions and counter-revolutions occur in all branches of scientific thought. Thomas Kuhn provides an interesting analysis of this phenomenon as it occurs in the natural sciences. He suggests that most scientific activity is what he calls normal science which amounts to the investigation of all facets of a particular paradigm (a paradigm being thought of as a set of concepts, categories, relationships, and methods, which are generally accepted throughout the scientific community at a given point in time). During the process of normal science certain anomalies arise, observations or paradoxes which cannot be resolved within an existing paradigm. These anomalies increasingly become the focus of attention until science is plunged into a period of crisis in which speculative attempts are made to solve the problems posed by the anomalies. Eventually there arises out of these attempts a new set of concepts, categories, relationships, and methods, which successfully resolve the existing dilemmas as well as successfully incorporating the worthwhile aspects of the old paradigm. Thus a new paradigm is born to be followed once more by the onset of normal scientific activity. 1 Kuhn's schema is open to criticism on a number of grounds. I shall discuss two problems very briefly. Firstly, there is no explanation as to how anomalies arise and how, once they have arisen, they generate crises. This criticism can be met by distinguishing between significant and insignificant anomalies. Thus it was known for many years that the orbit of. Mercury did not fit into Newton's calculations yet this anomaly was insignificant because it had no relevance when it came to the use of the Newtonian system in an everyday context. If, on the other hand, certain anomalies had arisen in, say, bridge construction, then they obviously would have been highly significant. Thus the Newtonian paradigm remained satisfactory and unchallenged until something of practical importance and relevance could not be accomplished using the Newtonian system. Secondly, there is the question, never satisfactorily answered by Kuhn, concerning the way in which a new paradigm comes to be accepted. Kuhn admits that acceptance is not a matter of logic and he therefore suggests that it involves a leap of faith. A leap of faith based on what? Underlying Kuhn's analysis is a guiding force which is never explicitly examined. This guiding force amounts to a fundamental belief in the virtues of control and manipulation of the natural environment and the leap of faith, then, is based on the belief that the new system will allow an extension of manipulability and control over some aspect of nature. Which aspect of nature?. Presumably once again it will be an aspect of nature which is important in’ terms of everyday activity and everyday life as it exists at a particular point in history.
