Introduction In his work, The Structure of Scientific Revolutions, Thomas Kuhn uses conceptual ideas to describe scientific revolutions. Even though Kuhn’s work has come under intense criticisms, he expounds his ides in a compelling style that makes them sensible. To understand Kuhn’s ideas, one would want to analyze some issues like the nature of ideas that people had at a particular time, the intellectual choices and schemes that were available at a time under investigation, the terminologies and languages that people used and many more issues. Kuhn’s arguments seek to detach contemporary ways of thinking from historical influences. These ideas resonate well with non-linear form of history where scientific theories or any theory per se does not come from a linear accruement of constructs. On contrary, scientific theories result from a converting set of considerations and hypotheses. However, it is logical that a scientific community cannot exist without basing its arguments on some perceived beliefs. According to Kuhn, “these beliefs form the foundation of the educational initiation that prepares and licenses the student for professional practice” (Kuhn 4). Kuhn observes that these beliefs help students to understand the scientific profession in a better way. Kuhn rues the fact that people assume that scientists know everything about worlds and this is what he seeks to correct by introducing the concept of ‘normal science.’ So, what is scientific revolution according to Kuhn? Scientific Revolutions According to Kuhn, when any anomaly subverts the elemental dogmas of an existing scientific practice, there is a shift from scientific professionalism to shared premises or hypotheses. This shift is what Kuhn terms as scientific revolutions. Therefore, as aforementioned, scientific revolution is not a linear accruement of constructs, rather it is a collection of ‘shifts’ as explained by Kuhn. A precise description of these shifts would be “the tradition-shattering complements to the tradition-bound activity of normal science” (Baigrie 64). These shifts bring with them new changes that are allowed as ‘new assumptions’ and these ‘new assumptions’ are paradigms, according to Kuhn. Additionally, these new assumptions come from reconstructing the existing assumptions and reconsideration of prior constructs. However, Kuhn notes that, this process of reconstructing and reconsidering assumptions and facts is tedious and time consuming; therefore, he offers a way of creating paradigms in the process of scientific revolution. Earlier on, there was a mention of ‘normal science.’ Normal science, “means research firmly based upon one or more past scientific achievements, achievements that some particular scientific community acknowledges for a time as supplying the foundation for its further practice” (Kuhn 16). These accomplishments must be new to appeal many bearing adherents for them to quit or not join other contending models of scientific body and they have to be open-ended with problems that these students will solve. Therefore, taking Kuhn’s definition of paradigms as ‘new assumptions’, these accomplishments qualify as paradigms. Moreover, for students to become part of this new scientific body or revolution, they examin