@Atlas_Rising. Who says it does. Independent inquiry must occur or its not a paradigm shift. Just a rationalization of the same old same thinking.

@Atlas_Rising. I respect your opinion, but I still stand by my definition. This the definition I use to define all paradigm shifts, as I understand and teach it, It represents a new way of thinking. May be the same problem, but a totally new way of thinking about the problem.

For instance, proor to 1930, geologists believed that the Earth's crust was one solid shell, with cracks which accounts for volcanoes. Around this time, Alfred Wegener shocked the geological world by proclaiming that the crust was not one solid unit, but series of connected plates. It took another 30 years for the proof and the geological world to come around to his way of thinking. This may sound insubstantial, but it is not. It was a completely new way of thinking about the data. It had far reaching implications for the field of science. Not just geology.

@Atlas_Rising I agree with most of what ypu are saying. Yet I can't help thinking that you might be goving short shift to the inidividual advances yhat occur in science (my field, so most examples I reference are with this in mind).

There are large jumps in scientific understanding that occur. But, here's the caveat (I bend to your argument here lol), no development in Science that I am aware of was made in a vacuum. Take for instance, evolution. Darwin developed his theory on his voyage around the world. But prior to Darwin, people like Lamarck, Lyell, and Linneas were contributing to a foundation that would become Darwinian evolution. Simultaneously, Wallace on his voyage aroundvthe world also came to the same conclusions, but without the knowlege of Darwins conclusions. The stage was set for the development of this theory as witnessed by the contemporaneous development. It marked a major paradigm shift in biological science. But yes, it was based on traditional thought processes as witnessed by an understanding of the scientific process.