"All crises close in one of three ways.

* Normal science proves able to handle the crisis-provoking problem and all returns to "normal."
* The problem resists and is labeled, but it is perceived as resulting from the field's failure to possess the necessary tools with which to solve it, and so scientists set it aside for a future generation with more developed tools.
* A new candidate for paradigm emerges, and a battle over its acceptance ensues —these are the paradigm wars."

"What is the process by which a new candidate for paradigm replaces its predecessor?

At the start, a new candidate for paradigm may have few supporters (and the motives of the supporters may be suspect).

If the supporters are competent, they will
- improve the paradigm,
- explore its possibilities,
- and show what it would be like to belong to the community guided by it.

For the paradigm destined to win, the number and strength of the persuasive arguments in its favor will increase.

As more and more scientists are converted, exploration increases.

The number of experiments, instruments, articles, and books based on the paradigm will multiply.

More scientists, convinced of the new view's fruitfulness, will adopt the new mode of practicing normal science (until only a few elderly hold-outs will remain).

And we cannot say that they are (were) wrong.

Perhaps the scientist who continues to resist after the whole profession has been converted has ipso facto ceased to be a scientist.