{"id":25397,"date":"2021-01-27T09:26:42","date_gmt":"2021-01-27T13:26:42","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.shortform.com\/blog\/?p=25397"},"modified":"2021-02-02T22:33:07","modified_gmt":"2021-02-03T02:33:07","slug":"anomalies-in-science","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.shortform.com\/blog\/anomalies-in-science\/","title":{"rendered":"Anomalies in Science: When Things Get Weird"},"content":{"rendered":"\n

What causes anomalies in science? How do scientists deal with anomalous events that cannot be explained within the existing paradigm?<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Recognizing anomalies in science is a key part of making new discoveries. When scientists discover an anomaly\u2014that is an event or phenomenon that can’t be explained within the existing paradigm\u2014they either brush it aside or establish a new paradigm where the anomalous event is then expected.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Keep reading to learn more about anomalies in science.<\/p>\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n

Dealing With Anomalies in Science<\/h2>\n\n\n\n

In attempting to resolve anomalies in science, scientists will push the rules of their current paradigm as far as they can go in an effort to see exactly where they break down. Once the breaking point is found, they will start speculating about new theories that can account for the anomaly. Then, if one of those theories holds up under scrutiny, it may form the basis of a revolution and a new paradigm. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

A good example of this is Ptolemaic astronomy, which was the paradigm before Copernicus\u2019s time. While it predicted most <\/em>planetary movements correctly, small details<\/a> such as when equinoxes would occur never quite lined up with reality.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Scientists kept making small adjustments over the course of centuries, until the system became so patchwork and so convoluted that it couldn\u2019t possibly be right. This is a clear sign of a scientific system in crisis. Finally, Copernicus said that the Ptolemaic system had become a monster, and he rejected it entirely to replace it with his own model. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

From Crisis to Theory<\/strong><\/h3>\n\n\n\n

In the Copernican revolution and almost all others, new theories come about when scientists repeatedly fail to explain anomalies in science, often over the course of many years. However, while the failure takes a long time to reach the point that it can\u2019t be ignored, the revolution often occurs relatively soon after that. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

In many cases, there are only 10-20 years between the crisis point and the establishment of a new paradigm, replacing the old one. While that sounds like a long time, consider that in the previous example it took hundreds <\/em>of years for scientists to admit the current system was failing. This short timeframe suggests that new theories come about as a direct result of scientific crises.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

This may be because many of the key anomalies in science\u2014the Ptolemaic system being the case in point\u2014were considered to be solved already, or so close that it hardly mattered, needing only some slight adjustments to the paradigm. Therefore, when it turned out that those problems couldn\u2019t <\/em>be solved, scientists felt the failure very keenly and began looking elsewhere for answers.  <\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

One other common element of new theories is that they were frequently developed\u2014at least to some extent\u2014during a time when there was no crisis in that field; but they weren\u2019t seriously considered until much later. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

For example, the Greek astronomer Aristarchus first suggested a heliocentric model of the solar system<\/a> in the 3rd century BC. However, since the then-current geocentric model explained the universe well enough, there was no need for his new idea and it was brushed aside. That would remain the case until many centuries later, when improved technology allowed astronomers to see things that the geocentric model couldn\u2019t explain.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

New Theories Create New Paradigms<\/strong><\/h3>\n\n\n\n

The only time a paradigm is rejected is when another one comes to take its place.<\/strong> This implies that the process of rejecting a paradigm doesn\u2019t just involve comparing it with nature, but comparing it with another paradigm. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

All scientific crises seem to resolve in one of three ways. <\/p>\n\n\n\n