Kuhn's normal science demonstrates that scientists are persuaded by paradigm-conformity and disciplinary authority, not raw evidence, during periods constituting most scientific practice.

?Rate how convincing each reason is below to see the overall strength.

1 reason for

1 reason against

Reasons For

1 perspective

Reason for

1 perspective

Reason against

Based on where you are in your exploration

Kuhn, Thomas(as the philosopher referenced in the statement): A 20th-century philosopher and historian of science who argued that scientific progress doesn't happen gradually but in 'jumps,' with scientists working within different frameworks (paradigms) that shape how they see the world.
Paradigm(Kuhn's philosophy of science; reflects the role of conceptual frameworks in mediating the relationship between theory and evidence.): A governing framework or model for a scientific community that is not automatically rejected by refractory evidence but is abandoned only when an alternative paradigm comes to seem preferable.
Paradigm-conformity(what Kuhn says actually influences scientists during normal science): The tendency to agree with and stick to the accepted framework and beliefs of your scientific community, even if other evidence might suggest something different.
Raw evidence(contrasted with what Kuhn says actually persuades scientists): Pure, uninterpreted facts or observations—information that hasn't been filtered through any theory, belief system, or framework.
normal science(Kuhnian philosophy of science): A phase of scientific activity governed by a prevailing paradigm, during which puzzles are worked on using the resources of that paradigm.

2 topics