What Science and Politics Have in Common

In the mid twentieth century, Thomas S. Kuhn wrote his landmark The Structure of Scientific Revolutions. He talked about how science changes. Not in the neat and orderly way we might think it should. If something is proven, then everyone should accept the facts, right?

Wrong. What Kuhn noticed is that the first response to a change in scientific fact is that it just gets ignored. Yawn. Ho-hum. Huh?

Yeah, if this new way of looking at things keeps being discussed and more evidence piles up, then it gets noticed. Not accepted, though. The second step is the new idea gets attacked and ridiculed. Pseudo-science. Cranks.

If the new idea persists, then all of a sudden there’s what Kuhn called a paradigm shift. Everyone accepts the new way of looking at things. They say, “We knew that all along.” Of course, there are a few holdouts. They’re now called cranks.

Maddening? Yes, but we’re emotional creatures as much as we want to say we’re rational. That we accept the facts.

Politics is the same. Take Occupy Wall Street. First, it was ignored. What protesters? We don’t see any protesters.

Then it was ridiculed. Look at those worthless, dirty hippies all out there acting ridiculous and having too much fun. They don’t even know what they’re protesting.

Now it’s being attacked. Check this out. And you know what, Peter King is right. We’re back.