{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.01888888888888889, 'fraction_numerical': 0.0, 'mean_word_length': 5.231833910034602, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
The Revolutionary Conservatism of Normal Science

The article analyzes the functioning of normal science. It has conservative fea­tures and implies the restriction of research practices to solving puzzle, rarely reflects on the ontological assumptions of its own paradigm. Such functioning of normal science allows it to solve a large number of various scientific and sci­entific-technical problems. As a result, normal science is developing quite rapidly. At the same time, revolutionary features can be distinguished in its func­tioning. They are associated with the struggle of each specific normal science for its position in the field of science, in the desire, through the dissemination of the results of its research beyond the scientific community and active participa­tion in the examination, to enlist the support of extra-scientific actors. Alliances with extra-scientific actors allow normal sciences to actively participate in the struggle for the redistribution of public attention and the financing of scientific research. With the help of such alliances, they are trying to introduce the results of their research into industry and public life. The success of such implementa­tions leads to an active redistribution of positions in the field of science. In this case, the revolutionary element of normal science is associated not with the de­sire to reconsider the fundamental ideas underlying it, but in the desire to rebuild the system of relations within the field of science, to take a leading position in it. As a result, it is concluded that the successful functioning of normal science is associated with the desire to make permanent micro-revolutions in the field of science, subject to a conservatively protective attitude to the fundamental as­sumptions of its own paradigm.