This paper reviews the literature on the history of science and the field of social development, showing the nexus between Thomas Samuel Kuhn’s seminal work, The Structure of Scientific Revolutions and the three paradigms of social development, namely the Dominant (Modernisation), Dependency, and Participatory (Another Development). In the history of science, Kuhn 1970 argues in his landmark work that science passes through four phases. In the first phase, scientists operate without a paradigm, and during this period, they experience all sorts of problems. The second phase sees the birth of a paradigm, and scientists begin to operate within it. In the third stage, weaknesses or flaws of the new paradigm begin to emerge. They may be explained away if they are not serious; however, if they prove otherwise, the paradigm is overturned, ushering in the fourth phase (scientific revolution). The successor follows the route followed by the predecessor; thus, the paradigm shift becomes a life cycle. The paper argues that the field of social development commenced with the Dominant Paradigm that, over the years, began to face overwhelming problems that finally overthrew it. It was replaced by the Dependency Paradigm, which suffered the same fate and was ousted by Participatory Development. This Article, a synthesis of recent literature, demonstrates that Kuhn's paradigmatic stages apply to the field of social development. The work proves intriguing and useful to the broad and interdisciplinary field of social science.

The Covid-19 pandemic is one of the most devastating health disasters in recorded history. In addition to the significant death toll, the pandemic is leaving behind a long tail of prolonged disease and disability. The long-term symptoms, clinical signs and sequelae of SARS-CoV-2 infection are collectively known as Long Covid – a patient-made term that was created and gained consistency in just a few months in Spring to Summer 2020. Long Covid was openly recognized by the World Health Organization (WHO) in August 2020, following intense advocacy by Covid-19 survivors. Long Covid has been described as the first illness identified, named and defined by patients finding one other on social media such as Twitter. As a disease entity named and defined collectively by patients, Long Covid has the potential to change knowledge building in medicine, while centring patient expertise within the biomedical community.This paper will, first, explore the rise of Long Covid as patient-made term, clinical entity and collective, grassroots, international advocacy–research movement in early 2020 and beyond. This happened while people with Covid-19 suffered abandonment and lack of care in the pandemic’s disaster context. Second, I will discuss some key paradigm shifts triggered by this ground-breaking patient-driven, collective advocacy–research, while sketching links with earlier patient movements, such as around HIV/AIDS. Then, I will explore the role of Long Covid advocacy–research in our digital era. This advocacy took place during a pandemic when digital spaces such as Twitter and Facebook were often the only arenas available to Covid-19 survivors. Moreover, I will raise some pressing issues around epistemic injustice in relation to the use of patient-produced data and the recognition of patient contributions to knowledge. Finally, I will address the need to fully acknowledge the nature, scope, and severity of Long Covid, which are detailed in thousands of scientific publications, including in relation to the ongoing spread of SARS-CoV-2.

Many suggestions for dealing with the so-called replication crisis in psychology revolve around the idea that better and more complex statistical-mathematical tools or stricter procedures are required in order to obtain reliable findings and prevent cheating or publication biases. While these aspects may play an exacerbating role, we interpret the replication crisis primarily as an epistemological crisis in psychology caused by an inadequate fit between the ontic nature of the psyche and the quantitative approach. On the basis of the philosophers of science Karl Popper, Thomas Kuhn, and Imre Lakatos we suggest that the replication crisis is therefore a symptom of a fundamental problem in psychology, but at the same time it is also an opportunity to advance psychology as a science. In a first step, against the background of Popper's Critical Rationalism, the replication crisis is interpreted as an opportunity to eliminate inaccurate theories from the pool of theories and to correct problematic developments. Continuing this line of thought, in an interpretation along the lines of Thomas Kuhn, the replication crisis might signify a model drift or even model crisis, thus possibly heralding a new paradigm in psychology. The reasons for this are located in the structure of academic psychology on the basis of Lakatos's assumption about how sciences operate. Accordingly, one hard core that lies at the very basis of psychology may be found in the assumption that the human psyche can and is to be understood in quantitative terms. For this to be possible, the ontic structure of the psyche, i.e., its very nature, must also in some way be quantitatively constituted. Hence, the replication crisis suggests that the ontic structure of the psyche in some way (also) contains a non-quantitative dimension that can only be grasped incompletely or fragmentarily using quantitative research methods. Fluctuating and inconsistent results in psychology could therefore also be the expression of a mismatch between the ontic level of the object of investigation and the epistemic level of the investigation.

The purpose of this research was to use a historical method and core principles from scientific philosophy to explain why mistakes were made in the development of the lactic acidosis construct. On a broader scope, this research explains what science is, why some scientists despite good intention, often get it wrong, and why it takes so long (decades) to correct these errors. Science is a human behaviour that consists of the identification of a problem based on the correct application of prior knowledge, the development of a method to best resolve or test the problem, completion of these methods to acquire results, and then a correct interpretation of the results. If these steps are done correctly there is an increased probability (no guarantee) that the outcome is likely to be correct. Thomas Kuhn proposed that you can understand what science is from how it has been performed, and from his essays he revealed a very dysfunctional form of science that he called 'normal' (due the preponderance of its presence) science. Conversely, Karl Popper was adamant that the practice of 'normal' science revealed numerous flaws that deviate from fundamental principles that makes science, science. Collectively, the evidence reveals that within the sports medicine and health sciences, as with all disciplines, errors in science are more frequent than you might expect. There is an urgent need to improve how we educate and train scientists to prevent the pursuit of 'normal' science and the harm it imparts on humanity.

for science that such shifts do not occur often or easily. According to Kuhn, the scientific paradigms preceding and succeeding a paradigm shift are so The Structure of Scientific Revolutions is a 1962 book about the history of science by the philosopher Thomas S. Kuhn. Its publication was a landmark event in the history, philosophy, and sociology of science. Kuhn challenged the then prevailing view of progress in science in which scientific progress was viewed as "development-by-accumulation" of accepted facts and theories. Kuhn argued for an e The Structure of Scientific Revolutions is a 1962 book about the history of science by the philosopher Thomas S. Kuhn. Its publication was a landmark event in the history, philosophy, and sociology of science. Kuhn challenged the then prevailing view of progress in science in which scientific progress was viewed as "development-by-accumulation" of accepted facts and theories. Kuhn argued for an episodic model in which periods of conceptual continuity and cumulative progress, referred to as periods of "normal science", were interrupted by periods of revolutionary science. The discovery of "anomalies" accumulating and precipitating revolutions in science leads to new paradigms. New paradigms then ask new questions of old data, move beyond the mere "puzzle-solving" of the previous paradigm, alter the rules of the game and change the "map" directing new research. For example, Kuhn's analysis of the Copernican Revolution emphasized that, in its beginning, it did not offer more accurate predictions of celestial events, such as planetary positions, than the Ptolemaic system, but instead appealed to some practitioners… Kuhn explains his ideas using examples taken from the history of science. For instance, eighteenth-century scientists believed that homogenous solutions were chemical compounds. Therefore, a combination of water and alcohol was generally classified as a compound. Nowadays it is considered to be a solution, but there was no reason then to suspect that it was not a compound. Water and alcohol would not separate spontaneously, nor will they separate completely upon distillation (they form an azeotrope). Water and alcohol can be combined in any proportion. Under this paradigm, scientists believed that chemical reactions (such as the combination of water and alcohol) did not necessarily occur in fixed proportion. This belief was ultimately overturned by Dalton's atomic theory, which asserted that atoms can only combine in simple, whole-number ratios. Under this new paradigm, any reaction which did not occur in fixed proportion could not be a chemical process. This type of world-view transition among the scientific community exemplifies Kuhn's paradigm shift.

Macrophages are myeloid immune cells that are strategically positioned throughout the body tissues, where they ingest and degrade dead cells, debris, and foreign material and orchestrate inflammatory processes. Here we review two major recent paradigm shifts in our understanding of tissue macrophage biology. The first is the realization that most tissue-resident macrophages are established prenatally and maintained through adulthood by longevity and self-renewal. Their generation and maintenance are thus independent from ongoing hematopoiesis, although the cells can be complemented by adult monocyte-derived macrophages. Second, aside from being immune sentinels, tissue macrophages form integral components of their host tissue. This entails their specialization in response to local environmental cues to contribute to the development and specific function of their tissue of residence. Factors that govern tissue macrophage specialization are emerging. Moreover, tissue specialization is reflected in discrete gene expression profiles of macrophages, as well as epigenetic signatures reporting actual and potential enhancer usage.