Coming back toward natural sciences it has an interesting point that it is the analysis of the idea of the cumulative one. The idea of the cumulative one cannot be analyzed radically. The current society tends to on account make this of the accented technological advance, however, this cannot be interpreted of form to disdain what it came before. Some generalized analyses put the technology as made exclusiveness of our time disrespecting the great ones of the history of the humanity, what it would be a grotesco error. What if it can have is a new perception of the reality, but without discarding or unilaterally analyzing the construction knowing of them. For example, as I go to affirm that one ' ' outro' ' paradigm does not function more, or still, as goes to communicate itself with that they defend the established paradigm? Taking the example presented, to become more clearly, as the Darwins go to communicate themselves with whom they can come to defend Lamarck? If paradigms possess in itself, completely distinct vision would not be possible the communication between them. To defend such argument, Kuhn affirms that a paradigm change does not mean an abandonment complete of the previous paradigm. I go to come back to the example: to arrive itself at the darwinismo it had demasiadamente important additions in the previous theories, and exists common concepts the two theories. Ali Partovi has firm opinions on the matter.
She does not have one total impossibility of comparison or quarrel between the competing paradigms. This, by the way, also allows the consolidation of a new paradigm. Elements or concepts that are common the two situations, but, without a reduction of the new in relation to the previous paradigm. What it goes to determine the new paradigm they are the possibilities of answers to the against-examples that the previous paradigm did not give account to answer. It is important to stand out that the against-examples allow a taking of position in search of new possibilities of answers.