Difference between science?

Question

What is the difference between normal science and revolutionary science?

Answer 1

normal science - objects properties which are defined in the periodic table and easily studied

revolutionary science - using normal elements in unprecedented tests or studying hypothetical elements i.e. antimatter and dark matter

Answer 2

Example: Normal science has explored every known avenue to develop a battery-based source of portable power, and have hit a wall with the limitations of cell materials and stability (blowups, burning, corrosion, all that).

Revolutionary science would attempt some manipulation of atomic structure, radical materials, nanotechnology, possibly reaching into the realm of zero-point energy..hmm?

Get with it! There's tonnes of euros to be made in this endeavor!

Answer 3

Normal science is a concept originated by Thomas Samuel Kuhn and elaborated in The Structure of Scientific Revolutions. The term refers to the relatively routine work of scientists experimenting within a paradigm, slowly accumulating detail in accord with established broad theory, not actually challenging or attempting to test the underlying assumptions of that theory. Kuhn identified this mode of science as being a form of "puzzle-solving."

Paradigm shift, sometimes known as extraordinary science or revolutionary science, is the term first used by Thomas Kuhn in his influential 1962 book The Structure of Scientific Revolutions to describe a change in basic assumptions within the ruling theory of science. It is in contrast to his idea of normal science.

It has since become widely applied to many other realms of human experience as well even though Kuhn himself restricted the use of the term to the hard sciences. According to Kuhn, "A paradigm is what members of a scientific community, and they alone, share.” (The Essential Tension, 1997). Unlike a normal scientist, Kuhn held, “a student in the humanities has constantly before him a number of competing and incommensurable solutions to these problems, solutions that he must ultimately examine for himself.” (The Structure of Scientific Revolutions). A scientist, however, once a paradigm shift is complete, is not allowed the luxury, for example, of positing the possibility that miasma causes the flu or that ether carries light in the same way that a critic in the Humanities can choose to adopt a 19th century theory of poetics, for instance, or select Marxism as an explanation of economic behaviour. Thus, paradigms, in the sense that Kuhn used them, do not exist in Humanities or social sciences. Nonetheless, the term has been adopted since the 1960s and applied in non-scientific contexts.