Paradigm Shifts

The concept of “paradigms” as applied to scientific progress was popularized by historian and philosopher Thomas Kuhn back in the 1960s. And within that context, a paradigm is the framework of reality within which we operate: the things we seem to know, the truths to which we cleave, the assumptions we make, and so on.

So during a previous paradigm in which everyone “knew” that miasmas caused disease, the concept of germ theory (that microorganisms cause many diseases) seemed laughable. Advances in optics (so we could see these microorganisms rather than just theorize about them) and subsequent developments in vaccination and bacteriology closed the door on miasmas, though, and the paradigm (in this field of inquiry) shifted.

Our modern disease-related paradigm could shift again, too. It’s generally assumed that many maladies have pathogenic origins, but if we discovered that it’s actually ripples in quantum spacetime (not something that has anything to do with disease, as far as we know, today) that cause smallpox and influenza, that fresh insight might take a while to percolate through the scientific world, and even longer to reach the medical laity. But eventually (if enough evidence is presented) we may step into a new quantum spacetime-based medical paradigm, bizarre as such a possibility might seem today (germ theory seemed just as unlikely to the medical practitioners of old).

This process of moving from one paradigm—one set of assumptions and frameworks—to another is called a “paradigm shift.” And this term is often applied to other spaces beyond the science world, too, because it can be a useful framing for understanding the collective movement from one jumble of assumptions and baselines to another.

For instance, if we were to transition from a reality in which human beings are the only entities capable of doing most types of productive work into one in which complex software (artificial intelligence) paired with sophisticated robotics can do the same, how might that change the economy? Human life? Assumptions about how one spends one’s time and what success looks like? How will scarce resources be managed, who will be in charge of what, and how does one’s everyday experience change if “work” as a life-defining concept evolves, or becomes superfluous?

What if our assumptions about geopolitics and the world were to be challenged? What if the post-World War II order were to be upended by new military threats, new informational mediums that make clear and accurate communication difficult, and perhaps even a new economic and cultural states of affairs (related to AI or some other development)?

The shift from one paradigm to another is seldom 100% predictable because of all the unknowns associated with stepping (or falling) into unfamiliar territory, and it’s seldom smooth, as many will cling to (now outdated) assumptions because those assumptions form the foundation of all their other assumptions (and losing that presumed status quo would mean revisiting and revising, perhaps fundamentally, every other thing they think they know—and our minds rebel against that kind of overhaul).

There are also typically people (and groups of people) who attempt to take advantage of such moments to grab power and/or resources of the kind that will be vital within that next-step paradigm. This makes it more likely the new state of things will reflect their values and priorities rather than some other collection of the same, and there are often disruptions that make such grabs easier, or in some cases simpler to conceal or justify.

When things change in a significant manner, then, we often see more conflict: of the warfare variety and of the “organizations killing off their competition and becoming behemoths” variety. Both flavors of aggression are “land grabs” by parties interested in claiming whatever metaphorical real estate they think will be most valuable in the coming paradigm.

At pivotal moments, then, there will often be those who oppose change because it’s change, and there will also be those who yearn for change—not necessarily because it will result in broadly positive outcomes, but because they believe they can guide it in directions that are good for them and the things they care about, if they move fast and aren’t afraid of breaking things.