The general outline of Kuhn's account of scientific change is a movement from pre-science—or

pre-paradigmatic observation and data gathering—to the adoption of a paradigm and the
activity of normal science, to anomalies that generate a crisis in the existing paradigm, to a
revolution that ends with a new paradigm.

Kuhn’s discussion of the structure of scientific revolution tells us that scientific discoveries are
the result of advancement through revolution in which he introduce the word “paradigm”. It is a
model for doing science and a framework within which practioners do their work. It is a major
scientific schievement, a theory that explains nature successfully, and it serves to inform
further investigation. Therefore, a paradigm is the framework within which science occurs at a
given time and is not questioned by those who work within it. Kuhn argues that scientific
enterprise is largely a social construct. Rather than a progression and advancement of
knowledge based on previous achievements, growth in scientific knowledge results from
revolutionary shifts in how scientists understand and research phenomena. After reaching a
consensus on a set of theories and practices, scientists often test hypotheses within these
accepted parameters, a state kuhn terms “normal science,” the period of activity during which
practitioners solve puzzles or explain previously unexplained phenomena using the existing
paradigm. In normal science the paradigm is further articulated, so in a sense, there are no
new discoveries and no proposals for new theories. Kuhn calls the process of normal science
"mopping up" or "puzzle solving."

During the period of normal science, anomalies, unexplained phenomena for which the
paradigm can provide no solution, may be ignored or may even go unnoticed. However, the
accumulation of anomalies precipitates a crisis, a phenomena that accepted theories and
methods of scientific investigations can’t explain. The challenge anomalies pose to normal
science can result in a scientific revolution- or paradigm shift.

When a paradigm fails to address myriad anomalies, a crisis occurs in which scientists begin
to work outside the existing paradigm in an attempt to solve the problem. There is likely
disagreement over the best solution, partly because factions interpret terms differently—"time,"
for example, may mean something different from one faction to the next. Eventually,
competing theories are more fully articulated and debated. Eventually, through a process that
is subjective and even political, enough practitioners convert to a theory, thereby elevating it to
the status of paradigm. The previous paradigm is thus displaced.

A paradigm shift signals not only the destruction of a paradigm, it also creates a new way of
looking at the world. The practitioners who converted from one paradigm to the next have
undergone a "gestalt" shift, in which old observations are new. These observations are
different in an important way, just as the duck is significantly different from the rabbit, even
though the drawing is of a duck-rabbit. Just as one suddenly sees the duck, or the rabbit, the
practitioner is converted by suddenly seeing things differently.

This difference also contributes to the incommensurability of one paradigm with another
(lacking common qualities necessary to make a comparison), or one community's practice with
another community's practice. For example, trying to compare the smell of a fire to the color
red is virtually impossible. They are so different in nature as to be indescribable. However,
because scientists no longer share the same concepts and language, it does not mean they
cannot communicate. Nonetheless, it would be a mistake to think the paradigm shift is a
building of one theory on top of another.
When new theories and models for conducting scientific research emerge, scientists test them,
and if proven sound, they become part of the new normal science.

In my own words, When a scientist discover something, it forms a paradigm that creates two
groups(fellowships or community) wherein each group have their own beliefs and the
members of each group should agree to that certain beliefs., there are group of people who
agrees to it and there another group of people who criticize and disapprove the discovery but
there is only one goal to solve one problem , Now each group have different solutions to prove
that their way in arriving the answer is the correct one and not the other group. Each group
defend their answers and beliefs thinking that they are the correct one.