Revolutionary science

One may question the relevance of this problem, or, in Kuhn s terminology, whether it belongs to normal science or to revolutionary science . Kuhn has commented on this classification ... to answer the question normal or revolutionary one must first ask, for whom . He gives two examples the advent of Copernican astronomy was a revolution for everyone, but the discovery of molecular oxygen was a revolution only for chemists. 

Not all scientific statements are testable hypotheses, laws or theories. For example, scientific paradigms, by one definition (Masterman, 1970 Horgan, 1996), are organizing principles which encompass much of the work of ordinary science, in the language of Thomas Kuhn (1970) but are not necessarily testable. Ordinary science is not the source of revolutionary science (except, possibly when it breaks down) and is not hypothesis driven so much as driven by the requirement to fill in the holes opened in a field by the scientific paradigm. 

One path to address the threats and opportunities presented by emerging technologies is to develop a strategic vision to foster revolutionary science. To be effective, a strategic vision will encompass traly multidisciplinary approaches and incorporate comprehensive capability and threat analyses. It will endeavor to ensure the alignment of federal and nonfederal initiatives and present a unified federal effort to prevent proliferation. 

From Normal to Revolutionary Science Education languaf d, video... 

The scientific knowledge cannot be completely verifiable or falsifiable but rather it is always fuzzyfiable which provides potentiality for further researches. The science and any related attribute to it will never be completely verifiably or falsifiable but always fuzzyfiable, and hence, further developments in the form of prescience, traditional science and occasional revolutionary science will be in view for all times, spaces and societies [2]. 

---