Epistemology of Thomas S. Kuhn’s Shifting Paradigm and Its Relevance to Islamic Science

This article aims to explain the epistemology of Thomas S. Kuhn's concept of Shifting Paradigm (1922-1996), a postmodernist with its philosophical, physical, and historical expertise, and the relevance of his thinking in Islamic science. The research is a qualitative study usi ng the epistemological point of view to analyze. Kuhn’s view on the Shifting Paradigm is analyzed based on the important points in the epistemology: the source and substance of knowledge; the instrument of knowledge; how to acquire knowledge; the theory of truth; and the validation of the truth of knowledge. The study finds that, first, the source and substance of science is the history of science. Second, the instrument of knowledge is the paradigm of science. Third, knowledge is acquired from the shifting process from the pre paradigm, normal science, anomalies, crises, to a new paradigm. Fourth, normal science is the theory of the truth. Fifth , the anomaly becomes the validation of the truth. Kuhn’s thinking of the Shifting Paradigm is relevant to Islamic science because it can be used as a method to explain the transformation of Islamic science. This paper is vital in discussing the relevance of Kuhn’s thinking to Islamic science. Despite many significant numbers of text on Kuhn's thinking, researchers have not found a text that especially discusses on the epistemology of the Kuhn’s conception of Shifting Paradigme and point out its relevance to the transformation of Islamic science.


Introduction
The development of science became an important part of human life. Beyond pointing out that man has existed, the development of science is also a sign that man is using his intellect in creating new formulations in science. Development and attainment in science have also made human life easier to observe natural phenomena practically and contributing to the history of science theoretically (Syafi'ie, 2000).
A historical trail of the modernizing crisis in the field of science has led to the emergence of postmodernism that is rapidly becoming a talking point among scientists today. In a general sense, postmodernism gives the scientists new things that refresh them and release them from the shackles of modernistic formalism. It produced a new development in science itself. Furthermore, the development of science can result in the dissatisfaction that later scientists had with previous scientists, which made a positive development in science (Rif'i and Mud'is, 2010). Thomas S. Kuhn (1922-1996 was one of the postmodernists of the United States with its philosophical, physical, and historical expertise; attempting to explain the shifting paradigm of science written in his book The Structure of Scientific Revolutions in 1962. In this book, he gave a very radical idea and contributed a great deal of thought and influence to post-positivism and postmodern epistemology with his scientific paradigm pluralism. Kuhn in with his conception of the Shifting Paradigm is at least successful in explaining the course of the history of science (Zaprulkhan, 2016).
The context of the course of scientific history theorized by Kuhn or what is called the scientific revolution is for economics or natural science; Physics and astronomy. Then, what if it were used to see a paradigm shift in social science?
Such a thing, of course, is complex and difficult. It because, economics or natural science is a sure thing, while social is relative. However, this could have been done because for Kuhn himself, scientific truth is tentative and relative, thus because of this science can evolve (Rif'i and Mud'is, 2010). By referring to the issue, this article will explain how the epistemology of Kuhn's Shifting Paradigm and how is this concept relevant to Islamic science.

Literature Review
Based on searches for literature relating to the subject of study in this article, we found some works of science that are similar to the study, among which are the following: first, a journal written by Fuad, etc., (Fuad & friends, 2015). Second, an article was written by Yeremias Jena in 2012 entitled Thomas Kuhn tentang Perkembangan Sains dan Kritik Larry Lauden which studied Larry Lauden's criticism of the scientific revolution of Kuhn (Jena, 2016

Method
This research is a qualitative study employing a philosophical approach. The philosophical approach in this case is devoted to analysis from the epistemological point of view. The material object discussed in this study is Thomas s. Kuhn's thinking about paradigm and its shift. As for the reason to select Kuhn as an object study is based on several reasons. First, because Kuhn was known as the philosopher who promoted the term paradigm in the postmodern era, so when we discuss about paradigm, it cannot be separated from Kuhn. Secondly, because of Kuhn's success in explaining the flow of the scientific revolution (Bagus, 2010).

Findings and Discussion
A Revolution (Trisakti, 2018). He also studied at the University of California at Berkeley (Ulya & Abid, 2010 Professor of Philosophy at MIT (Trisakti, 2008).

Background of Thomas S. Kuhn's thinking
The Structure of Scientific Revolutions is unquestionably Kuhn's most famous work, in which he comprehensively explained his idea of a scientific revolution occurring in the realm of science. One of Kuhn's objectives in writing the book was to defy the prevailing stereotypes of the way science changes. In the view of the common man and some scientists, scientific progress is cumulative, each stage of progress is built on the entire advance that had been made Zaprulkhan (2016), this is the view that Kuhn criticized and saying that science is not cumulative, but revolutionary.
Kuhn understands the history of science is not a linear and continued process, but a process that cannot be compared and leaped. The emergence of such scientific leaps begins with the anomalies into old science or old paradigms, which then unable to survive, or a paradigm shift (Yuana, 2010). In other words, it is the appearance of these new facts-which the old paradigm could not finish-that caused the shifting paradigm to occur.
In addition to the above several reasons, Kuhn's view of science and its development was a response to the rapidly growing neo-positivism in Vienna. This development is primarily in a group known as the Vienna Circle, a discussion group of scholars based at the University of Vienna, Austria. The group emphasized the importance of the process of verifying and experimental confirmation of the "scientific language" as the step and process of development of science, as well as the differentiating line between science and not science. Positivism sees the development of science is accumulative. That is, science continues to unfold as an accumulation of what has happened as a result of scientific research throughout its history. Further, they also establish scientific and unscientific criteria by one theory or proposition through verification principles (Lubis, 2014).
Before Kuhn, views on science were dominated by philosophical ideas on the scientific method. One is the assumption of the positivists, which suggests that scientific changes should be progressive. Besides, the pathway of change must be cumulative, objective, nomologic, and linear. Scientific progress is also seen as adding new truths to the stock of old truths, or increasing estimates of truth theories, or at least correcting errors in the past (Orman, 2016). This was rejected by Kuhn, for he argued that science developed through the scientific revolution and the scientific revolution came about through a paradigm shift.

Besides, Kuhn's view was also a response to Karl Popper's thoughts. For
Popper, the process of scientific development in him would have to probably error with a process called falsification and refutation. Falsification is an experimental process to examine a scientific theory. The Falsification of Popper is a theory that requires one science to be proved wrong, which can then eliminate it. It means the truth of the theory is accepted until it is discovered by another scientist. Kuhn denies this and he considers it's inappropriate. The development and particularly the change of science according to Kuhn never occurs based on empirical efforts through the process of unification of a theory or system, but rather through one very fundamental change or a scientific revolution (Lubis, 2014 choose which phenomena to study, but they must also select a theoretical approach to do the research (Zaprulkhan, 2016). Aristotle was, in a sense, the first Greek philosopher to build such a scientific point of view in the 2 B.C.E. Kuhn has certainly studied this early history concerning how the revolution came about in the postmodern world.

Thomas S. Kuhn's Conception of Shifting Paradigm
The scientific revolution is the drastic change that occurs in the stage of the scientific development or noncumulative development when the old paradigm is replaced entirely or in part by a conflicting new paradigm Kuhn (2012), or is different from before. The substitution of a scientific paradigm would result in a very basic distinction between the old paradigm and the new-which replaced it (Lubis, 2014). The new paradigm needs to discard the old paradigm not just the development of previous theories, but a new paradigm gives new ways of seeing the world, new ways of thinking, and new goals and methods in exploring the universe (Zaprulkhan, 2016). The scientific revolution of Kuhn illustrates that scientific truth will be discovered many times or its scientific form will be changed even from the same object. It is not continuous, improvisational, evolution or cumulative, but it also produces revolutions (Nurkhalis, 2012).
The scientific revolution began with the growth of awareness of the scientific community that the prevailing paradigm no longer functions adequately in the exploration of an aspect of nature, which previously pointed the way for such exploration (Kuhn, 2012). It means that there are new facts that have emerged that are then unable to complete the old paradigm. It is also the cause of a crisis that triggers a new passion for the scientific community to introduce new paradigms to meet the demand for sure answers about nature or science. The first scientific change of science was "discoveries" or "anomalies." The anomaly is the recognition that nature has somehow exceeded the expectations set in motion by the paradigm that governs normal science (Mauskoph, 2012).
The old paradigm that was "kicked out" by this new paradigm called the scientific revolution. Based on the theory, Kuhn assumed that science was just a social process and consensus of scientific communities. In other words, scientific truth is relative and depends largely on the social factor that is the scientific community. Science cannot give an objective and one objective truth. He only gives tentative truth (Lubis, 2014). Kuhn did not see the claim of knowledge objectivity from the development of knowledge itself. According to him, the claim of objectivity in both knowledge and science comes not only from within and its discipline, but from a broader framework, or a broad social framework. That is, Kuhn saw the claim of scientific objectivity itself in the development of knowledge as the gathering of human beings within society (Watloly, 2013).
As for the paradigm, for Kuhn, was a basic view of the subject of science.
Defining something that should be examined and discussed, what questions to ponder, how to formulate the question, and what rules to follow in interpreting the answer. The paradigm is also defined as the largest consensus in the scientific world that serves to distinguish one community from another. Paradigms are closely related to the defensive, scientific copies, theories, methods, and instruments included (Lubis, 2014). The scientific truth for Kuhn is tentative and relative to what appears when normal science experiences anomalies and culminates into a crisis that results in a new revolution and the emergence of a new paradigm, then a new science, and so on (Fuad & friends, 2010).
The shift of study on history to the structure of scientific practice and scientific ideas has largely resulted in the abandoning of the old paradigm, and the presence of the new paradigm is judged as a relevant category to the current scientific world.
The new paradigm experienced a revolution that served as a historical interpretation (Nye, 2012 For example, the earth is believed to be the center of the universe (the theory of geocentric), and the sun and the planets orbit around it. Aristotle's model or scheme began to be questionable and abandoned after the advent of a new astronomical system (a new paradigm) from Copernicus that claimed that the earth was not the center of the universe. The earth and the planets in fact orbit around the sun (the heliocentric theory). Galileo Galilei and Newton were two major proponents of the theory of Copernicus. These two physicists have offered a new model, pattern, or scheme for seeing and explaining the natural phenomena. So, the shift from a paradigm of Aristotelian to a paradigm of Copernicusiab, Galilean, and Newtonian has occurred (Lubis, 2014).
In summary, the development of science according to Kuhn can be explained have not agreed on a particular method that will be used as a pattern or official reference to research. At this stage, many scientists give their theory and try to point out that it is the theory and therefore deserves an official grip on the discipline of science. This is what is known as the paradigmatic war. There's a competition here to show whose theory is the best. From this came a paradigm and normal science (Zaprulkhan, 2016).
Second, the forming phase of paradigm and normal science. A paradigm is a central concept in Kuhn's thinking. In many kinds of literature, it is said that Kuhn himself did not have a clear and consistent definition of the paradigm, so in much of his explanation often the context and meaning of his explanation are changed (Zubaedi & friends, 2007). A paradigm agreed upon by the scientific community, because of its advantages in solving scientific problems, would be the foundation for the appearance of normal science. The normal science consists of only one paradigm, for if it is composed of many, it will be overlapping and will not be the normal science again (Zaprulkhan, 2016).
In his book The Structure of Scientific Revolutions, it is explained that normal science means research solidly based on one or more scientific achievements past, ones that certain scientific communities at one time claim to be the foundation for further practice (Kuhn, 2012). This phase shows, where one stream of thought or theory arose in the pre-paradigm dominates disciplined theories or other sciences (Jena, 2012). Third, the emergence phase of anomalies and crisis, both scientific practice and disciplinary matrix can no longer be relied upon in solving the new issues. Scientists began to question the accepted paradigm over time. Here we have a serious competition because the winner determines whether a paradigm will work (Jena, 2012). Kuhn says history proves that there is no one perfect paradigm that answers all scientific problems. Scientific problems that cannot be solved by a paradigm called an anomaly. Thus, the anomaly arose because the old paradigm had lost the ability to answer the scientific problems that arose Zaprulkhan (2016), and this resulted the emergence of the fourth phase, crisis.
Quite simply, the crisis is a cumulation of unfinished anomalies. This is due to an increasing number of problems that paradigms cannot solve. The crisis is also a phase in which the normal old science (old normal science) based on the old paradigm has trouble solving the new scientific problem (Zaprulkhan, 2016). To overcome the crisis, there was a revolution in the scientific world. By practicing a paradigm war on new concepts from science experts, a new paradigm that would later emerge the new-normal science could form.
Fifth, the emerging phase of a new paradigm, during the competition, one of schools or streams of thought emerged and could address the problem, able to generalize and promise a better research future (Jena, 2012). In the history of science, an old paradigm is abandoned not because it is less scientific than it is new but because it is no longer considered fit to solve a problem. New paradigms give new ways to see the world, new ways to think, and new purposes and methods to explore the universe. A new paradigm needs to discard the old paradigm, not just a development of previous theories. Consequently, the scientific revolution twilight the rejection of the old paradigm, not just the addition to the new one. A process from the old-normal science to the emergence of a new-normal science, and then followed a more recent normal science, and so on, Kuhn understood it as a neverending process, and this led to scientific development. Kuhn also adds that the change from the old paradigm to the new paradigm or from the old-normal science to the new-normal science occurs radically, one killed to the other (Zaprulkhan, 2016).
An old paradigm has already intolerable then replaced by a new paradigm different from the previous one (incommensurable). In the sense that there is no more conformity in the old paradigm of facing or solving new problems faced. The old is replaced by the new, this is what Kuhn calls the scientific revolutions. It needs to be noted also that with the consequences above, each paradigm is ultimately very subjective depends on groups that consider a theory to be a paradigm. So each theory that results depends greatly on the group's perspective (Zaprulkhan, 2016). gives instructions for further work. It is a research tradition, a way of thinking that brings a set of assumptions and guides a group of scientists to approach natural phenomena. It also gives way to see the problem, and it determines certain techniques that are correct and various acceptable solutions (Ghulsyani, 1986).
This means F.R. Jevons agrees with Kuhn, which states the implications of Kuhn's paradigm, which helps the developmental science process.
In the same book quoted the different views presented by Goldsmith.
According to him, there is a flawed link in the paradigm of modern science with current physical or nonphysical effects. Modern science nowadays is nothing but an accumulation of half the truth, and this half-truth is that man tries to control the world, and as a result, brings the world to ruin (Ghulsyani, 1986).
Between the two opinions, the writer agrees with the two. The scientific revolution was the development of science. Scientific development brought new Although, the ending didn't have a happy ending, because Kuhn's conception of a paradigm as a social movement was then suppressed (Fuller, 2001).

Analysis of Epistemology of Shifting Paradigm
The central question of epistemology speaks of what can be known and how to get to the knowledge (Suhartono, 2011). For Kuhn, the social process determines the development of science. The old paradigm shift to a new paradigm is caused by the dynamic social processes and a new challenge of the era itself. The development of social processes has implications in the development of science. It because the development of science rests on social processes causes it to be relative.
For Kuhn, the source and the nature of knowledge is the history of science, whereas the knowledge instruments are the paradigm of science. As for science and philosophy, Kuhn stated, it is to challenge the prevailing notions of how science changes.
In Kuhn's theory, the way to acquire knowledge is to take it from the current scientific paradigm (normal science) in a particular scientific community. For example, in the 2nd-century, Aristotle, and Ptolemy discerned that the earth was the center of the solar system (geocentric). Increasing the social process of the theory began to be questioned because of the uncertainty and failure of the expected answer to the riddle of science. Later, scientists attempted to unravel the riddle of science, as social processes called for answers that were supposed to eliminate the uncertainties. In the middle ages between the 16th century, Copernicus and his supporters Galileo Galilei and Newton performed experiments and observations that produced new variations that the earth was not the center of the universe, the earth and the planets were orbiting around the sun.
As for the theory of truth, scientific statements are true if they go in line with an existing paradigm (normal science). Whereas the validity of truth of knowledge is an anomaly, as long as scientific anomaly does not arise then the theory of knowledge is validated as true. Bashrah, Kufah, and Egypt, which occurred in the 1 and 2 centuries AH / 7 and 8 CE (Hamali, 2007).
Second, the paradigm and normal science phase are when a paradigm agreed upon by the scientific community because of its efficacy in solving scientific problems, which would then serve as the foundation for the normal science emerged, which is the new thought or theory arising in pre-paradigm phase dominates other disciplines of theory or science (Zaprulkhan, 2016). At this phase, tasawuf as an established paradigm of science with theoretical concepts of soul, morals, and metaphysics, and the mainstream of the two faces of tasawuf; Akhlaqi and falsafi that occurred in the 3 and 4 AH/ 9 and 10 CE. Later, in the 5 / 11 AH., tasawuf Sunni that was spearheaded by Imam al-Gazali develop, and in the next century 6 and 7 AH/ 12 and 13 CE, tasawuf falsafi appeared to dominate again (Rif'i & Mud'is, 2010).
Third, the anomaly phase, emerged because the old paradigm was no longer able to answer the scientific problems that arose (Zaprulkhan, 2016). At this stage, tasawuf has a decline because it is limited to comments or summary of its previous tasawuf books and just like a ritual away from the substance of tasawuf, which occurred in 8-13 AH / 14 -19 CE (Rif'i & Mud'is, 2010).
Fourth, crisis phase; the cumulation of anomalies that cannot be unfinished (Zaprulkhan, 2016). In the case of tasawuf, in addition to the scientific construction of tasawuf has failed to develop, tasawuf is also faced with a crisis that is considered incompatible with modernization and tasawuf is considered to be the cause of the decline of Muslims, and it is heresy, and superstition (Rif'i & Mud'is, 2010).
Fifth, the new paradigm phase, an old paradigm is abandoned not because it is less scientific than the new, but because it is deemed irrelevant to solving a problem (Zaprulkhan, 2016). This phase produces what is called neo-Sufism, the tasawuf spearheaded by Fazlur Rahman in 19 century who attempted to reinstall a positive attitude toward the world (Rahman, 2010). Paradigm, we can conclude some important things. First, the source and essence of science-in Kuhn's concept-was the history of science. Second, the instrument of knowledge is the scientific paradigm. Third, the way to gain knowledge is starting from the pre-paradigm there arose normal science, there were anomalies and crisis, and then there was a new paradigm. Fourth, the theory of truth is normal sciencein the sense that scientific statements are correct when they correspond to the prevailing paradigm (normal science). Fifth, validation of the truth of knowledge, is the discovery of anomalies, as long as scientific anomalies do not arise then the theory of knowledge is validated as correct.
As for the relevance of this concept to Islamic science, it can be used as a method of analysis in describing the transformation of Islamic science, concerning the line of the scientific revolution of Kuhn. In this case, the concept can be used to describe the transformation of tasawuf. First, the pre-paradigm, the phase in which the tasawuf seed appears in the form of the life-form zuhud. Second, the paradigm and normal science, the phase in which tasawuf was established as a science. Third, the anomaly phase, the phase in which the tasawuf is regressing. Fourth, the crisis phase, where there are various anomalies in tasawuf science. Fifth, a new paradigm, a phase in which neo-Sufism emerged spearheaded by Fazlur Rahman.