According to Kuhn, science is the continuous product of a repeated cycle.

The nature of research and the retrospective contributions may differ between the pre-paradigm, normal science, and revolutionary science phases of this cycle, but the cyclical process is vital to the advancement of every scientific discipline. Science starts in the pre-paradigm phase, in which several theories attempt to explain a phenomenon. During this phase, fact-gathering occurs in a nearly random pattern, as individual groups of scientists seek evidence to prove their own preferred theoretical explanations. Because there is no overarching theory, no paradigm in Kuhns words, to guide this fact-gathering, each individual discovery seems important; there is no context to determine which facts are truly relevant. It is during this phase that inter-theoretical debate occurs that inhibits true scientific progress. The disagreements between theoreticians often reiterate and defend fundamental issues of the phenomenon framed in their own interests, precluding the possibility of pursuing specific issues and nuances of the phenomenon. The length of time spent in the pre-science phase varies greatly, and often depends on the development of new technologies. Eventually, through this fact-gathering, enough evidence accrues for one theory to be accepted as a paradigm. This paradigm does not need to, nor does it ever, explain all the issues and facts relating to the phenomenon in question, but it must seem better than its competitors. It is strong enough to attract followers away from competing models, but open-ended enough to leave puzzles to solve. As adoption of this paradigm spreads amongst the discipline, the phenomenon gains a backdrop allowing scientists to fully explore the issues surrounding it. The discipline has progressed to a normal science phase. -----------------------Through normal science and the exploration of the paradigms parameters, anomalous results conflicting with the overarching theory will build up. The paradigm itself was never meant to be an immutable and perfect explanation for the phenomenon, but eventually, conflicting evidence may accrue that no amount of ad-hoc alteration of the theory can truly explain without destroying the fundamental foundations of the paradigm. This results in a crisis, in which the underlying assumptions of the paradigm fall under question. The cycle repeats itself as fact-gathering occurs to explain the holes revealed by anomalies in the existing paradigm, and eventually a new paradigm is adopted that is more explanatory of the phenomenon than the previous phenomenon. It is important to note that each step in this cycle contributes to the development of science. Pre-science allows for the competition of theories and exploratory fact-gathering when there simply is not enough data to hold a dominant paradigm, normal science allows for the testing of the boundaries of the paradigm, along with the develop of methodologies and tools to explain the puzzles that can be put into

context of a universal theory, and revolutionary science allows theoretical restructuring should a paradigm truly fail to explain a phenomenon. At no point in this cycle does science cease to progress.