Introduction The term “discovery” has multiple contexts and meanings and therefore it is sometimes hard to provide its appropriate conceptualization. The present paper deals with the use of this term (or the notion of discovery) in the articles, written by Kuhn, Tompkins, Pratt and Percy, who understand this term as a disclosure of certain facts, interrelations between these facts or new phenomena. Kuhn is “The Structure of Scientific Discovery” analyzes the perception of this concept by scientific circles: “Both scientists and, until quite recently, historians have ordinarily viewed discovery as the sort of event which, though it may have preconditions and surely has consequences, is itself without internal struc­ture” (Kuhn,1987, p.2). Thus, the scholar suggests that the basic nature of discovery is viewed as an insight or spontaneous idea, which comes after the profound research of the certain area – in fact, the most prominent discoveries were made by competent scientists, who had dedicated their lives to the area of their interest. On the other hand, Kuhn suggests that in fact even the most irrational and spontaneous ideas are well-structured and are preceded by the thorough background work, often performed by several scientists. For instance, when Priestley discovered oxygen in 1774, he was first unaware of his ground-breaking finding. The discovery of X-rays occurred almost in the same way: the scientist had different intentions, when arranging and conducting his experiments, and was surprised after realizing that there were different types and structures of emanation. Thus, as Kuhn suggests, it is particularly important to learn the ability to view situations and research results from different angles, or “old situations in new ways” (Kuhn, 1987, p. 6) in order to make a discovery. It is also essential to be prepared for unpredictable results, which might lead to a new discovery (rather than pointing to the poor arrangement of the study itself). Discovery as an addition to already existing specific knowledge Furthermore, Kuhn argues that discovery is not necessarily an addition to already existing specific knowledge, as they might finally grow into the development of radically new areas of knowledge or to develop new practices and techniques: “Those in whose area of special competence the new phenomenon falls often see both the world and their work differently as they emerge from the extended struggle with anomaly which constitutes the discovery of that phenomenon” (Kuhn, 1987, p. 6). Thus, the newly-made discovery is regarded as a distinct part of the world, or an unexplainable phenomenon, as it hasn’t been already incorporated to the traditional science. This class of discoveries is separated from the discoveries, aimed at filling the gaps in classical areas of knowledge and therefore greatly based upon the researcher’s expectations. To my view, the discoveries of the two classes often occur simultaneously, or within the frames of the same experiment; for instance, Priestly intended to develop new techniques in order to expand his research in chemistry, but discovered oxygen beyond achieving his basic objective. Consequently, his sudden finding resulted in the repudiation of the phlogiston theory and incited the revolution in academic circles. In Percy’s writing, discovery is presented as a organization of impressive findings into a theory and reflection upon these findings. Fo