NEWS CENTER

新闻中心

奥博资讯

媒体报道

体系论文

首页

On the Eve of Paradigm Shift: When Anomalies Accumulate, Science Must Break Free from Cognitive Inertia

发布时间：

2026-08-17

On the Eve of Paradigm Shift: When Anomalies Accumulate, Science Must Break Free from Cognitive Inertia

Sun Zuodong

Thomas Kuhn's theory of "paradigm revolutions," proposed in The Structure of Scientific Revolutions, has long inspired generations of explorers. Kuhn argued that the development of any mature discipline typically undergoes a prolonged phase of "normal science." Within the framework of an established paradigm, scientific research resembles a puzzle-solving game: scholars accept the foundational theories, observational methods, and interpretive logic recognized by the community, continuously filling in details, refining data, and advancing steadily along predetermined directions. The lifelong work of the vast majority of researchers is confined within this conventional cognitive system.

Yet normal science has inherent boundaries. As exploration deepens, an increasing number of phenomena that cannot be smoothly explained by existing theories emerge—what Kuhn called "anomalies." Initially, the academic community grows accustomed to adding hypotheses and patching loopholes within the original framework, much like mending an old garment. But when the patches outnumber the original fabric, the garment has long since lost its shape, and the academic community falls into a collective cognitive confusion. This is not a matter of anyone deliberately clinging to the past; rather, the paradigm has long been internalized as our way of seeing the world, and altering it is akin to shaking the very foundation of our cognition. This moment is the eve of a paradigm shift, and also the window period during which new ideas and new theories most readily take root.

Many people labor under a misconception: that the difficulty new theories face in gaining a foothold stems from a lack of experimental data support. Having worked deeply in basic research for many years, I have come to profoundly realize that what obstructs paradigm change is often not objective experimental facts, but collective cognitive inertia. There is rarely any malicious rejection involved; more often it is an instinctive defense formed by established cognitive patterns. A paradigm shapes a generation's knowledge system, research directions, teaching logic, and evaluation standards. If the underlying cognitive premises are challenged, it means the interpretive frameworks of a vast body of past research must be reexamined. Out of cognitive inertia, people subconsciously avoid conflict, choosing to look away or give it the cold shoulder—a recurring pattern in the course of scientific development.

The current state of research in the field of membrane ion channels is a typical case in point. For decades, a solid paradigm has taken hold in academia: ions such as sodium, potassium, calcium, and chloride possess mutually independent, structurally specific channel proteins. Researchers worldwide rely on this consensus to conduct experiments, resolve protein conformations, and develop targeted chemical drugs, driving the field continually forward. Yet at the same time, numerous anomalies persist: drugs targeting a single channel struggle to fundamentally reverse neurodegenerative conditions; ion permeability changes dynamically with membrane potential; the same membrane protein exhibits strikingly different spatial conformations under different observational conditions. These phenomena can only bebarely explained under the existing paradigm by continuously adding supplementary hypotheses.

The protein images captured by structural biology through cryo-electron microscopy are, in essence, merely static snapshots of molecules in continuous motion. If one directly equates transient conformations with the permanent inherent structure of a protein, it is easy to fall into the cognitive trap of "blind men touching an elephant." We must raise a critical question: could the multiple protein morphologies captured be merely different appearances of the same membrane structure under different operational states?

The truly valuable scientific spirit lies not only in daring to question external mainstream consensus, but even more in possessing the courage to examine oneself and revise past cognition. Eleven years ago, when I wrote Brain Cell Activation Theory, my own cognition was likewise constrained by the prevailing academic paradigm of the time. After prolonged and continuous deductive reasoning, I gradually discovered limitations in the original underlying assumptions, and so set about organizing the logic and conducting a systematic review and revision of my earlier theory. For an explorer, there is no meaning in stubbornly clinging to views held years ago or maintaining superficial consistency. Science seeks continual approximation to truth, not the preservation of one's personal views as eternally correct.

Scientific progress has never been a linear process of simple accumulation of evidence, but rather a history of iterative replacement of cognitive frameworks. When a new paradigm is first born, it rarely gains widespread acceptance immediately; most undergo a long period of obscurity. The greatest value of putting one's thoughts into writing and making them public lies not in how much applause they win in the short term, but in providing later generations with a path of thought that can be referenced and examined. Even if someone in the future can falsify my deductions, a complete record of my thinking can likewise prevent later generations from repeating the same mistakes.

A paradigm shift does not occur out of thin air. It begins when some people are willing to pause and reexamine those "anomalies" that have been habitually overlooked; it begins when people are willing to break free from the shackles of rigid thinking and dare to step outside the cognitive framework long taken for granted. As the explanatory power of the old system continues to decline, we should maintain openness and self-reflection: do not let established conclusions imprison our thinking, and always retain the ability to ask questions anew and think anew.

Truth has no ultimate version; each generation's cognition is but a waystation on the long road toward the unknown.