Hossein Jorjani
First publication: 2026 – 07 – 20
Many historical and scientific developments are commonly described as if they consisted of discrete events: revolutions, paradigm shifts, qualitative leaps, breakthroughs, or discoveries. Such expressions are often useful as descriptive labels, but they should not be mistaken for explanations.
Closer examination frequently reveals that what appears to be a single event is the culmination of numerous interacting processes extending over varying periods of time. The Russian Revolution of October 1917, for example, cannot be understood without reference to the February Revolution of the same year, earlier political developments, the Revolution of 1905, the Russo-Japanese War, and many preceding social, economic, and intellectual changes. No single historical moment fully explains the outcome.
A similar observation applies to the history of science. New theories rarely emerge instantaneously. They are commonly preceded by earlier conceptual proposals, partial formulations, methodological refinements, technological advances, and gradual acceptance within the scientific community. What is later described as a “scientific revolution” or “paradigm shift” may therefore represent the visible culmination of a much longer developmental process rather than an isolated historical event.
Even examples from the natural sciences illustrate the same principle. Water is commonly said to undergo a phase transition at 100°C under standard atmospheric pressure. At the molecular level, however, evaporation proceeds through innumerable local interactions. Different regions reach the critical conditions at different times, and individual molecules enter the vapor phase one by one. The apparent discontinuity is therefore a macroscopic description of an underlying continuous process rather than a single instantaneous transformation.
This does not diminish the usefulness of terms such as revolution, phase transition, or paradigm shift. Rather, it places them in their proper methodological role. They identify recognizable stages within complex processes but do not themselves explain how those stages came into existence. Scientific and historical explanation should therefore seek the processes that generate such events instead of treating the events themselves as the primary explanatory units.
Hossein Jorjani 