Scientific paradigms are difficult to change

D.Antón

The paradigm of normal science defined by Thomas S. Kuhn is the set of theories, rules, procedures and knowledge that permeate a particular society at a particular time in its history. Today it regards to the scientific “model” widely adopted in contemporary global society_.
The theme of hydrocarbons, as well as the geophysical and geological framework that would lead to their formation and evolution, is an established paradigm that resists being changed despite the numerous data which should induce a radical and thorough review.
In this “globalized” society it is assumed that the official scientific model developed through the accumulation of scientific data would allow “progress” in knowledge, in particular achieving greater detail in the specific application of accepted scientific models.
Unfortunately, there is no official method in this paradigm (or any other dominant paradigm) that would accept other theories and apply other rules or procedures that may end modifying it radically.
For that reason, in the field of petroleum geology, it is so difficult to put into question the validity of many concepts whose accuracy are being contradicted every day by reality.
The difficulty of changing the official paradigm is that this modification, nor only modifying concepts, but mainly because it also alters power relations.
Politically, those who hold “the paradigmatic power”, are the same mechanisms that control decision-making.
From the economic point of view they are the ones who benefit from the decisions made based on the officially accepted postulates
In the academic sphere there are those who defend their prestige and economic security that give professional or academic positions they occupy and eventually would be threatened by a possible change of paradigm (Lovelock, 1988).
When we analyze the accepted theory about the origin of oil and natural gas, and its main defenders in the academic and industrial world, we find a similar a similar situation as was generally defined by Kuhn and Lovelock.
The biotic theory of petroleum formation involves the inevitability of future shortages, which produces price increases.
Companies and oil states are particularly interested in defending this point of view to sustain their huge income.
The interest of researchers and academics to maintain the paradigm of fossil fuels minerals is based on the privileges granted by the institutional structures and the economic and organizational power of the establishment.
In short, the struggle for the preservation of the paradigm of fossil fuels, is not just a theoretical discussion. Like so many other issues, it also arises in terms of economic, political and social power.
The ideas of Thomas Gold and other astronomers, astrophysicists and geologists who proposed the theory of planetary degassing have been ignored, and even desautorized, but not disproved with relevant scientific information.
We have no doubt that sooner or later the paradigm shift will occur. When the critical mass of researchers and scientists and support of the public is sufficient, when the decades passed and new data become available confirming the new vision of the history and dynamics of our planet, power structures will be disarticulated and a new paradigm based on the actual data will be officially accepted.
At that time the conditions will be created to redefine the political and economic strategies to develop and establish a new approach to human relationships with the resources and environments on the planet.
From: "Unexhaustible? Natural gas and petroleum". Danilo Antón, Piriguazu Ediciiones