Thomas Kuhn wrote his groundbreaking book "The Structure of Scientific Revolutions" in 1962. It remains a standard part of the professional literature for students of the hard, soft, and social sciences. Kuhn was interested in the nature and history of science: how it developed, matured, and changed. Just as MBA students found they had much to learn from Sun Tu's "The Art of War" (a book on military theory written more than a thousand years before Harvard was a University), Magic players should take a moment to learn from Kuhn.

Kuhn's work is important for many reasons, but is of special interest to the world because of his insights on paradigms. Paradigms, for Kuhn, are "universally recognized scientific achievements that for a time provide model problems and solutions to a community of practitioners." Kuhn allowed his readers to view changes in both the perception and the evaluation of data that has long since been accepted.

This essay attempts to apply Kuhn's model of the structure of scientific revolutions to theories of Magic and Magic strategy.

The importance of such an undertaking should not be underestimated. Kuhn's model allows one to view the current state of a discipline and make predictions as to its future. Applied to Magic theory, it would allow for both an improved understanding of the relative importance of various contributions and provide guidance as to what still needs to be done. Perhaps even more importantly, notions about searching for the "truth" can be disabused, and strategy writers can get to the more important (and useful) task of paradigm construction.

"If science is the constellation of facts, theories, and methods collected in current texts, then scientists are the men who, successfully or not, have striven to contribute one or another element to that particular constellation. Scientific development becomes the piecemeal process by which these items have been added, singly and in combination, to the ever-growing stockpile that constitutes scientific technique and knowledge."

This holds true for Magic theory as well. When one talks of strategy, it is the articulated ideas on card advantage, metagaming, deck archetypes, critical turns, or the like that we refer. Magic theorists are viewed by their readers as those who have written on the subject. (Well, I should hope so! -- The Ferrett) We implicitly accept that their strategy articles build on the work of others. In short, we can see so far because we stand on the shoulders of giants.

For Kuhn, this view is straightforward, logical, but misinformed. In order to say that science (or Magic strategy) is a linear process that builds on the past requires, at a minimum, that we are able to do two things. First, we must be able to match discoveries to people and times. Who invented the deck archetype Trinity Green? At what time? When was the theory of card advantage first recognized?

Second, and even more complicated, we need to "describe and explain the congeries of error, myth, and superstition that have inhibited the more rapid accumulation of the constituents of the modern science text." Which archetypes were wrongly conceived? Are beliefs about drawing/playing first in the current sealed deck environment based on a supportable, testable theory - or do they merely the idiosyncrasies of those who are winning the most recent sealed deck tournaments? Just as Kuhn rejects the view of science as a linear process, we must begin by rejecting the magic theory as linear in design or outcome.

Kuhn argues that rejecting out-of-date theories as unscientific in principle because they have been discarded is wrong. For Kuhn, "science has included bodies of belief quite incompatible with the ones we hold today." The same holds true for Magic theory. Proponents of Necro initially contended that it worked best (and perhaps only) with a horde of cheap casting-cost creatures. Current theory sees Necro in a different context. It is unfair, incorrect, and misleading to suggest that those who built decks that dominated the "Black Summer" were not strategic in their design because they developed a theory of the use of Necropotence that does not fit with how it is currently viewed.

Astute readers will already see the problem. Since neither science or magic theory is linear, we cannot chart a history of it in the normal fashion. Since we cannot properly view it as a cumulative developmental process, we must ask a different series of questions to ascertain a true history. To maintain the integrity of what has come before, we must place it in its own time and context. For Kuhn, this suggested "the possibility of a new image of science." For us, it allows a new image of Magic strategy and theory. Such a revision allows a fuller understanding of theory, promises to improve the quality of strategy in general, and makes the results more accessible to a wider range of interested parties.

Kuhn's seminal book looks at normal science, which he defines as "research firmly based upon one or more past scientific achievements, achievements that some particular scientific community acknowledges for a time as supplying the foundation for its particular practice." Modifying Kuhn for our purposes requires that we view normal Magic theory as Magic theory, or strategy contributions based on past strategy knowledge.

To illustrate: A normal Magic theory article on Fact or Fiction begins with an assumption that card advantage is beneficial. This point does not need to be rehashed, since reinventing the wheel is not necessary each and every time. Instead, accepted theoretical premises are used as the foundation for any future strategy/theory article that is written.

The research that a community of scholars accept are often collected in one or more books. These books "expound the body of accepted theory, illustrate many or all of its successful applications, and compare these applications with exemplary observations and experiments." For students of Magic theory, no such book currently exists. We do, however, refer to the pages of the Dojo or previous articles by one or more columnists on the web. These works "served for a time implicitly to define the legitimate problems and methods of a research field for succeeding generations of practitioners." Kuhn argues they could do so "because they shared two essential characteristics. Their achievement was sufficiently unprecedented to attract an enduring group of adherents away from competing modes of scientific activity. Simultaneously, it was sufficiently open-ended to leave all sorts of problems for the redefined group of practitioners to resolve." These two components are the essential building blocks of theory. If one ponders the seminal articles on Magic theory, they find they were unprecedented and open-ended. Card advantage will serve as an acceptable illustration of this point.

When Magic the Gathering was initially released, each color had a one casting-cost spell that would give it three of something. White had Healing Salve, which netted three life for one mana. Blue was given Ancestral Recall so it could get three cards for three mana. Black had Dark Ritual, which allowed it to get three mana for one. Green could give a creature +3/+3 for one mana with Giant Growth. Finally, Red could inflict three damage to a creature or opponent for one mana with Lightning Bolt.

If someone unfamiliar with the game had the rudiments of play explained to them and was then asked which was the best of the five cards, how do you think they would respond?

When you first started playing, how did you respond? If you were like me, you rated Lightning Bolt as #1, since it reduced your opponent's life (thus bringing them closer to losing) and Ancestral Recall may have come as low as third or fourth. To comprehend that Ancestral Recall is much more powerful than the others is to understand the rudiments of cards advantage.

Although readers of this accept the power of Ancestral Recall as an article of faith, consider that the idea is truly novel. In a game where your primary goal is generally to reduce your opponent to zero life while maintaining your own life total at one or above, the most useful card gives you no direct way to lower your opponent's life total or raise your own. Equally important, the concept of card advantage is open-ended. Drawing more than your opponent, drawing more useful cards than your opponent, forcing your opponent to discard cards, denying your opponent the resources to use their cards, making cards in their hand "dead" by your choice of decks - all are examples of card advantage. Understanding and implementing each of these strategies requires the work of many writers, all dedicated to explaining the intricacies of the game to a wider audience.

Kuhn refers to achievements that share the above two characteristics (unprecedented and open-ended) as paradigms. They "provide models from which spring particular coherent traditions of scientific research." Studying the paradigms of the discipline you are interested in is a prerequisite to joining the academic community and becoming a practitioner. Since the student will join others who learned the basics from the same models, "His subsequent practice will seldom evoke overt disagreement over fundamentals. Men whose research is based on shared paradigms are committed to the same rules and standards for scientific practice. That commitment and the apparent consensus it produces are prerequisites for normal science, i.e., for the genesis and continuation of a particular research tradition."

It is the same for Magic theorists. To enter the community of accepted writers, one must first read what has come before. Since these people will learn "the basics" from a prescribed set of postulates (e.g. card advantage, the critical turn, etc.), they will seldom disagree with the fundamental assumptions. This allows the community of magic strategists to communicate with one another. They will all approach the challenges of the game in a similar fashion. Disagreement will only take place at the margin. A timely example of this would be the recent spate of articles on deck-building in the current Sealed environment. While some may argue for forty-one instead of forty, no one is suggesting to use fifty cards if that is how many good ones you get in your sealed deck. While there is minor disagreement over whether to use fifteen, sixteen, or seventeen creatures as the ideal, none I have read suggest that most games will (or should) be anything but a creature battle. Disagreement is voiced (and tolerated) only at the margins.

It is possible to conduct research without paradigms. However, "acquisition of a paradigm and of the more esoteric type of research it permits is a sign of maturity in the development of any given scientific field." Mature disciplines display a developmental pattern of paradigm transformation via revolution. Immature disciplines harbor "a number of competing schools and subschools, most of them espousing one variant or another" of a theory. These early efforts are essential, though, since the eventual paradigm will draw heavily from the more creative members of this early group of researchers. Each school will make important contributions - and eventually, someone will effectively synthesize them together into a nearly uniformly-accepted paradigm for the discipline under consideration.

Kuhn does provide readers with warnings about the early phases of paradigm development. "In the absence of a paradigm or some candidate for a paradigm, all of the facts that could possibly pertain to the development of a given science are likely to seem equally relevant. As a result, early fact-gathering is a far more nearly random activity than the one that subsequent scientific development makes familiar. Furthermore, in the absence of a reason for seeking some particular form of more recondite information, early fact-gathering is usually restricted to the wealth of data that lies ready to hand. The resulting pool of facts contains those accessible to casual observation and experiment together with some of the more esoteric data retrievable from established crafts... Because the crafts are one readily accessible source of facts that could not have been casually discovered, technology has often played a vital role in the emergence of new sciences." This also holds true for magic theory/strategy.

If one looks at the strategy/theory articles available at any given time, they tend to run the gamut of possibilities. There is little rhyme or reason beyond the latest Pro Tour season as to why they focus on one aspect of the game or another. Moreover, the internet has allowed a diffusion of information that has shaped the nature and the content of the strategy/theory covered. Some, for example, may argue that an article of this nature is inappropriate on a website that caters to a broad group of readers, many who may not grasp or be interested in the finer points raised. (For example, the editor raised concerns that such a dense and scholarly text as this might not be read as widely as a "poppier" and more easily-read treatment might - but the author insisted that his tone was critical to the nature of his argument - The Ferrett) The internet has allowed strategy articles to be made available more readily to a wider audience than would have been possible, but has placed the implicit demand for immediate relevance on each article that is eventually accepted for publication. Technology has played a multifaceted role in the development of Magic theory/strategy. We tend to view only part of the puzzle at any given moment in time. Relatedly, the lack of an articulated paradigm has helped marginalize important findings by relegating each article to a more equal status than is warranted.

At heart, this is the first lesson Kuhn bestows on the Magic community: The lack of a paradigm limits the advancement of knowledge. The articles that so many of us spend time writing are less useful to the community of readers than they ought to be. The "latest tech" is usually just that: The latest tech. It is not necessarily adding to the body of knowledge since in many cases, it is written to replace (and not supplement) what has come before. In such an environment, it is impossible to create a convincing argument that theory "x" is the most relevant. Ignorance is disseminated at the same rate as knowledge.

History offers hope. What we experience in the Magic community is similar to what sciences have gone through. "This is the situation that creates the schools characteristic of the early stages of a science's development. No natural history can be interpreted in the absence of at least some implicit body of intertwined theoretical and methodological belief that permits selection, evaluation, and criticism... No wonder, then, that in the early stages of the development of any science different men confronting the same range of phenomena, but not usually all the same particular phenomena, describe and interpret them in different ways."
What, then, is the belief that ties together the Magic Theory/Strategy articles?

Winning through knowledge.

All strategy articles relate, explicitly or implicitly to winning through knowledge. Card advantage, the metagame clock, critical turns, and all the others are written and read because an understanding of these points is thought to advance the goal of winning. Although the implications of this are widespread and multifaceted, detailing each would cause too much a divergence from the main task of this article to go into at this time. Suffice it to say that Magic, like all pre-paradigm subjects, does still have a common theme linking together the work performed. (Critics may correctly point out that "winning through knowledge" is somewhat trite. Games are generally played to be won. Knowledge of your strategy, of your opponent's strategy, etc. tend to further this goal. To such critics I would agree, but I would also suggest that the fact the articles are tied together so loosely is further illustration of the point. Magic does not have a paradigm.)

When will this state of affairs end? Although it might seem that such divergences will plague a field forever, they do eventually largely disappear. "Furthermore, their disappearance is usually caused by the triumph of one of the pre-paradigm schools, which, because of its own characteristic beliefs and preconceptions, emphasized only some special part of the too-sizable and inchoate pool of information." The school of thought that emerges is the framework of future research. It is the paradigm. "To be accepted as a paradigm, a theory must seem better than its competitors, but it need not, and in fact never does, explain all the facts with which it can be confronted."

Successful paradigms do not attempt to explain everything. Instead, they suggest what experiments are worth performing, what facts ought to be cataloged, and what we ought to concern ourselves with. According to Kuhn, the effectiveness and efficiency of research increases accordingly. Quoting Francis Bacon, he writes, "Truth emerges more readily from error than from confusion." Paradigm development affects not only the research, but the STRUCTURE of the group practicing the field. Since all begin with similar assumptions and are concerned with similar problems, research flourishes.

"When, in the development of a natural science, an individual or group first produces a synthesis able to attract most of the next generation's practitioners, the older schools gradually disappear. In part their disappearance is caused by their members' conversion to the new paradigm. But there are always some men who cling to one or another of the older views, and the profession ignores their work. The new paradigm implies a new and more rigid definition of the field. Those unwilling or unable to accommodate their work to it must proceed in isolation or attach themselves to some other group.... The more rigid definition of the scientific group has other consequences. When the individual scientist can take a paradigm for granted, he need no longer attempt to build the field anew in his major works, starting from first principles and justifying the use of each concept introduced."

In short, the development of a paradigm confers a positive and a negative on the group. It simplifies research, but at the potential cost of excluding dissident views.

A paradigm is not an object for replication. "Instead, like an accepted judicial decision in the common law, it is an object for further articulation and specification under new or more stringent conditions." This is due in large part to the fact that success of a paradigm "is at the start largely a promise of success discoverable in selected and still incomplete examples. Normal science consists in the actualization of that promise, an actualization achieved by extending the knowledge of those facts that the paradigm displays as particularly revealing, by increasing the extent of the match between those facts and the paradigm's predictions, and by further articulation of the paradigm itself."

All this allows the discipline to conduct normal or paradigm-based fact-gathering research. Disciplines that engage in normal research address three classes of problems.

"First is that class of facts that the paradigm has shown to be particularly revealing of the nature of things. By employing them in solving problems, the paradigm has made them worth determining both with more precision and in a larger variety of situations.... A second usual but smaller class of factual determinations is directed to those facts that, though often without much intrinsic interest, can be compared directly with predictions from the paradigm theory.... A third class of experiments and observations exhausts, I think, the fact-gathering activities of normal science. It consists of empirical work undertaken to articulate the paradigm theory, resolving some of its residual ambiguities and permitting the solution of problems to which it had previously only drawn attention."

Research is not limited to fact-gathering. Paradigm articulation and the development of universal constants such as quantitative laws also drive paradigmatic work.

The literature of normal science then, is interested in three classes of problems: "determination of significant fact, matching of facts with theory, and articulation of theory. . . They do not, of course, quite exhaust the entire literature of science. There are also extraordinary problems, and their resolution may be well, which makes the scientific enterprise as a whole so particularly worthwhile. But extraordinary problems are not to be had for the asking. They emerge only on special occasions prepared by the advance of normal research." It is to those problems we now turn attention.

Normal science is primarily concerned with puzzle-solving. We attempt to solve problems within the framework of our discipline's paradigm. Some problems however, do not fit neatly into the paradigm. When results are not consistent or simple, they tend not be used to articulate the dominant paradigm. As such, they become relegated to the realm of mere facts, unrelated to the continued articulation of the paradigm at hand. What draws people to science is puzzle-solving. The best scientists are the ones best able to solve complex puzzles. They may be interested in solving them because of "a desire to be useful, the excitement of exploring new territory, the hope of finding order, and the drive to test established order (but) (o)nce engaged (in normal science), his motivation is of a rather different sort. What then challenges him is the conviction that, if only he is skillful enough, he will succeed in solving a puzzle that no one before has solved or solved so well."

The advantage of this state of affairs is obvious. "One of the reasons why normal science seems to progress so rapidly is that its practitioners concentrate on problems that only their own lack of ingenuity should keep them from solving." A paradigm allows a discipline to advance at breakneck speed. The lack of a paradigm dooms a discipline to theoretical infighting, advances that later turn out to be retreats, and a slow and unsteady progression toward finding answers.

Once a discipline has matured and developed a paradigm, an interesting state of affairs develops. On the one hand, there is an overriding desire not to discover anything novel. If the paradigm is sufficient, it will explain everything we need to know. On the other hand, experience tells us that new and unsuspected phenomena will be repeatedly found. Occasionally, these discoveries have profound effects on the discipline. Those that do share three characteristics. "Those characteristics include: the previous awareness of anomaly, the gradual and simultaneous emergence of both observational and conceptual recognition, and the consequent change of paradigm categories and procedures often accompanied by resistance."

The above should be exciting for all interested in theory. The development of a paradigm will not stagnate the discipline. Rather, the development of a paradigm will facilitate research and allow anomalies to be uncovered which will yield more robust paradigms. This is not an overnight process. Generally, paradigms remain in use so long as they facilitate the expansion of knowledge. It is only when they become so weighted with anomalies that they can no longer adequately explain phenomena that they are changed; and then only if a new paradigm emerges that explains what has come before and addresses at least some of the more pressing anomalies that have developed.

Kuhn goes on to describe the conditions necessary for paradigm shifts (or scientific revolutions) to occur. I will not bore the reader with them, as they do not relate directly to my point. Kuhn's work on the structure of scientific revolutions has been used for years by social scientists to explain their own developing disciplines, to address pathologies, and to attempt cures. The community of Magic theorists can likewise use Kuhn to understand what has come before, what is likely to emerge in the future, and to develop ways to encourage the development of a paradigm. The first step toward a paradigm though, is an understanding of where we currently stand.

As always, comments are both welcomed and encouraged.

Walter R. Huber