The discussion of the Haze so far has only peripherally included the bifurcation of science into “normal” and “crisis.” This perspective has been useful in illustrating some aspects of scientific research. However, the complexity of the Haze along with the nature of paradigms may have already made it apparent that the notion of a parallel existence of two distinct kinds of science is too simplified, especially when considering modern mathematically based theories and the advanced technology needed for the production of supporting experimental evidence. The success of the scientific endeavor depends on an interdependence of “normal science” and multiple paradigms so that there is no clear separation between fact-gathering and “times of crisis” in science leading to paradigm change (whatever form the latter may take). Both are always present in some form and to some degree. The consideration of an example of modern research provides a succinct illustration.

Here again, a concept is borrowed from innovation research. Dominant design is a theory in which an overarching plan governs the central idea of different technologies arranged in a hierarchy of nested subsystems (Abernathy and Utterback 1978; Murmann and Frenken 2006; Sanderson and Uzumeri 1995).Footnote 1 Instead of a technological assemblage, I illustrate a successful scientific experiment and its reliance on “normal science” as well as different paradigms. The paradigms are linked directly to the “core components,” or fact-gathering activities, within the hierarchy of basic building blocks of today’s investigations of complex systems. Figure 21.1 shows the example of the optimization of catalytic materials with a synchrotron-based X-ray source (Greiner et al. 2018). The mixture of methods and corresponding paradigms needed to interpret experimental results and characterize system behavior—empirical chemistry and materials science, solid state theory, optics, the wave theory of light, statistical mechanics, thermodynamics, classical electrodynamics, quantum mechanics, and relativistic electrodynamics, not to mention engineering abilities—are depicted as a four-level nested hierarchy. The paradigms are embedded in a way specific to each subsystem that ultimately defines the systems level. Their distinct arrangement is advantageous for certain studies so that research goals and individual components (theory or measurement methods and, therefore, paradigms) may be exchanged for adaption to different experiments. For example, slight changes in components 1–4 would lead to an effective regime for optimizing materials for photovoltaics. Like dominant design technologies, the higher the sub-system level that is replaced, the more effort is required to make the changes.

Fig. 21.1
figure 1

A four-level nested hierarchy showing the components and subsystems required to achieve an optimized catalyst using synchrotron-based X-ray emission. Small changes in 1–4 would allow for the optimization of materials for photovoltaics. Inset: the paradigms critical to each component. Based on fig. 1 in Murmann and Frenken (2006)

Full size image

Figure 21.1 explicitly reflects the complexity of the Haze, now comprising multiple paradigms, and a way in which its condensation may be illustrated. This outcome is natural. The scientific paradigms (or theories) currently available to us are each limited in the behavior they can describe while real physical systems are not subject to the same constraint. In order to understand these systems, it is not sufficient to view the universe in only one way. A set of different paradigms is required to solve scientific problems, whether “normal” or of the “crisis” variety. Furthermore, the creativity inherent in science along with a unique aesthetic value becomes apparent in the hierarchy. It shows the strict, overriding rules often associated with scientific research to be infused with a subjective element of strategy that is needed to overcome the complexity. Until now, the words “innovation” or “innovative” have been avoided with regards to science; instead the words “discovery” and “breakthrough” have been consistently used.Footnote 2 Yet Fig. 21.1 makes it difficult to completely exclude a sense of innovation, if only with respect to the artistic traits of scientific research.

This interplay begs the question of the communication (or brokerage) between paradigms themselves. “Communication across the revolutionary divide is inevitably partial,” wrote Kuhn. Later he continued, “before they [scientists] can hope to communicate fully, one group or the other must experience the conversion that we have been calling a paradigm switch (Kuhn 1970, pp. 149–150).” Similarly, Fleck wrote, “the greater the difference between two thought styles, the more inhibited will be the communication of ideas (Fleck 1979, p. 109).”Footnote 3

Much has been made of the veracity of these statements, but it is apparent that the ability to communicate is adequate for successful cross-paradigmatic work. This is as true today as it was in Haber’s time and as it was in the eighteenth century. Antoine Lavoisier, while conducting his combustion experiments on sugar in 1787, used the “pre-chemical revolution”Footnote 4 nomenclature, “vitriolic” and “inflammable air,” and “post-revolution” terminology, “sulfuric” and “hydrogen gas.” “If it is true,” wrote Lawrence Holmes, “that revolutionary changes in science imply new uses of language which make it impossibleFootnote 5 for those who have adopted the new and those who remain in the old to communicate fully with each other, then Lavoisier’s tendency to cross over that language barrier in the midst of a single chain of thought raises interesting questions about whether he also crossed over in the thoughts themselves (Holmes 1985, pp. 334–336).”

Another example returns us to our theories of mechanics. A modern quantum mechanist and a classical mechanist (from the nineteenth century) could agree that the stable state of an object moving in a central potential is defined by total energy and rotational inertia. After this initial accord, a heated argument would likely break out, but it would be enough to move beyond a layman’s conversation and maybe even to collaboration. In fact, Niels Bohr used aspects of both paradigms to successfully describe the spectral characteristics of the hydrogen atom in 1913 (Bohr 1913). Interparadigmatic communication is not only possible, it is indispensable for the condensation of the Haze and the precipitation of the breakthrough.

I argue that Haber, like Lavoisier and Bohr, simultaneously thought in multiple languages; it was likely his most effective tool during work on ammonia synthesis. Thus, the line blurs between normal science and crisis science (including the paradigm shift). Important breakthroughs as well as large amounts of routine scientific work—the progress and development of science itself—have long been consistently dependent on contributions from multiple paradigms. Normal science and paradigm shifts are interrelated; a paradigm shift may have vast effects on some areas of normal science and little effect on others. At the same time, particular results of normal science may mean a step toward a paradigm shift, large or a small (Rudwick 1985, pp. 448–450). A breakthrough, as part of this complex of activity, is made distinct by the context of an arena for discovery.

Scientific research is not the only strategy we have to bring about change (I have already indicated that my purpose here is not to argue for the primacy of science), but it is a remarkable method, proven to be effective. The results of scientific investigations influence our daily lives and we should feel encouraged to delve more deeply into exactly what we are doing when taking on the role of scientist. Not only that, but we will benefit from understanding how science fits into the other processes of our world, how it provides raw material for innovation, and how it benefits from existing technology. I have tried to show why science is unique, but another objective in this section has been to show that there are also similarities with the other endeavors I have mentioned such as art, medicine, engineering, politics, sports and business. Science forms a bookend with art to our endeavors as humans (de Santillana 1968). As art is the most extreme example of subjective truth in the eyes of humans, so is science our most extreme attempt at an expression of objectivity. Both make sense out of the chaos of possibilities and our other endeavors and the resulting achievements are some mixture of the two. In both art and science there is infinite choice. In art it is a continuous variation of anything we can render; in the natural sciences, there are discontinuous sets of rules to describe our universe according to how we are able, or how we are forced to view it. We may never find the end of either.