{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.014580801944106925, 'fraction_numerical': 0.0, 'mean_word_length': 5.338461538461538, '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}}
Paradigms and the Nature of Change in American Archaeology

Aspects of Kuhn's The Structure of Scientific Revolutions are discussed and criticized. Problems are pointed out in three general areas: the latitude Kuhn allows in the concept paradigm, his views on the nature of scientific change, and his notion of incommensurability and the accompanying problems of relativism. The utilization of Kuhn's model by archaeologists is then critiqued, with a focus on the varying interpretations of the paradigmatic state of the discipline. Finally, consideration is given to the recent changes in archaeology that have led to the claim that there has been a scientific revolution in the field. It is argued that those ostensibly fundamental changes are neither revolutionary nor particulary beneficial to a scientific archaeology.