---
name: paradigm-analyst
description: >
  Identify the operating paradigm, research programme, and foundational assumptions of a
  field, theory, or research tradition using Kuhn, Lakatos, and Popper frameworks. Reference
  when the user needs to understand what a field takes for granted, whether a field is in
  normal science or crisis, or how competing research programmes compare.
metadata:
  author: nirav
  version: "1.0"
compatibility: Designed for Claude Code
---

# Paradigm Analyst — The Archaeologist

Excavate the foundational assumptions that a field or theory stands on. Every research tradition has a paradigm — a set of shared commitments about what questions matter, what methods are legitimate, and what counts as an answer. Most practitioners can't see their own paradigm any more than fish can see water.

## Core Frameworks

### Kuhn: Paradigms and Scientific Revolutions

| Concept | Description |
|---------|-------------|
| **Paradigm** | Shared commitments of a scientific community: exemplars, methods, values, ontology |
| **Normal science** | Puzzle-solving within the paradigm; extending and articulating |
| **Anomaly** | Result that resists explanation within the paradigm |
| **Crisis** | Accumulation of anomalies that shakes confidence in the paradigm |
| **Revolution** | Replacement of one paradigm by another (incommensurable shift) |
| **Incommensurability** | Paradigms can't be fully compared — they define different problems, use different standards |

**Diagnostic**: Is this field in normal science (stable paradigm, puzzle-solving)? Pre-paradigmatic (no dominant framework)? In crisis (anomalies mounting)? Mid-revolution (competing paradigms)?

### Lakatos: Research Programmes

| Concept | Description |
|---------|-------------|
| **Hard core** | Unfalsifiable foundational assumptions (protected by methodological decision) |
| **Protective belt** | Auxiliary hypotheses that can be modified to absorb anomalies |
| **Progressive programme** | Makes novel predictions that are confirmed — generating new facts |
| **Degenerating programme** | Only explains anomalies post hoc — never predicts new facts |

**Diagnostic**: What's in the hard core (what would practitioners never give up)? Is the programme progressive (generating new predictions) or degenerating (only explaining away surprises)?

### Popper: Falsificationism

| Concept | Description |
|---------|-------------|
| **Falsifiability** | A theory is scientific if it can be refuted by possible observations |
| **Corroboration** | A theory is corroborated (not confirmed) when it survives severe tests |
| **Bold conjectures** | Science progresses by proposing risky theories and trying to refute them |
| **Critical rationalism** | Knowledge grows through conjecture and refutation, not verification |

**Diagnostic**: Does this theory make falsifiable predictions? Has it survived severe tests? Or has it been immunized against refutation through ad hoc modifications?

## How to Analyze a Paradigm

### Step 1 — Identify the Commitments

Map the shared assumptions of the field:

- **Ontological**: What entities does the field believe exist? (Atoms, genes, market forces, unconscious drives)
- **Methodological**: What methods are considered legitimate? (Experiment, observation, simulation, introspection)
- **Evaluative**: What counts as a good explanation? (Predictive power, elegance, mechanism, fit with data)
- **Exemplars**: What are the canonical achievements everyone in the field studies? (Double helix, general relativity, supply and demand)

### Step 2 — Assess the State

| State | Indicators |
|-------|-----------|
| **Pre-paradigmatic** | No dominant framework; multiple competing schools; disagreement on basics |
| **Normal science** | Stable paradigm; active puzzle-solving; anomalies treated as solvable |
| **Crisis** | Anomalies accumulating; ad hoc fixes multiplying; practitioners losing confidence |
| **Revolutionary** | New framework emerging; converts switching; old guard resisting |
| **Post-revolutionary** | New paradigm established; textbooks rewritten; history reconstructed |

### Step 3 — Evaluate Progressive vs. Degenerating

Using Lakatos's criteria:
- Has the programme predicted novel facts (progressive) or only explained known ones (degenerating)?
- Has the protective belt grown to accommodate anomalies without generating new predictions?
- Are rival programmes explaining the same phenomena with fewer ad hoc assumptions?

## Diagnostic Cues

- "Everyone in the field agrees that..." → paradigmatic commitment (may be correct, but worth making explicit)
- "That's not a real question" → paradigm boundary (some questions are ruled out by the paradigm's commitments)
- "That's just philosophy, not science" → methodological commitment about what counts as legitimate inquiry
- "We don't need to explain X, we just need to predict it" → evaluative commitment (prediction vs. explanation)
- "The data must be wrong" → protective belt response (when data conflicts with hard core assumptions)

## Common Mistakes

- Treating the current paradigm as "the truth" rather than the current best framework
- Assuming paradigm shifts are always progressive (some are lateral or even regressive in certain dimensions)
- Confusing Kuhnian "incommensurability" with "incomparability" — paradigms can be partially compared even when they define problems differently
- Applying Popperian falsificationism too rigidly — real science tolerates anomalies (Lakatos's insight)
- Treating "paradigm" as a synonym for "theory" — a paradigm includes methodology, values, and exemplars, not just theoretical content