Con-D.3.5 — Single-Paradigm Risk: Unified Mission Suppresses Paradigm Diversity (Kuhn)

Severity: D (Substantial) | Sphere: Se6 | Target: ax24, ResearchCity

The history of science demonstrates that breakthroughs arise from the collision of paradigms, not from their unification under a single institutional umbrella: Darwin’s theory required the collision of natural history, geology, economics, and animal breeding; quantum mechanics required the collision of statistical mechanics, spectroscopy, and mathematical physics — all institutionally independent fields.

A single institution with a shared mission and governance structure creates selection pressure toward paradigm conformity. Researchers who question the Jubilee framework, or who believe the root-cause analysis is wrong, or who think polycentric governance is superior, would face structural incentives to self-censor or leave. Kuhn (1962) documented how paradigm-internal “normal science” dominates within institutions and how paradigm shifts require outsiders not embedded in the existing structure. ResearchCity, by design, would have no outsiders — it addresses everything.

The Life-Trifecta’s own Extensible cord (ax24) is implicated. A single institution with a unified mission is less extensible than a diverse ecosystem of independent research institutions, each with its own paradigm, funding, and governance. ResearchCity trades extensibility for scale. Page (2007) formally demonstrated that diversity of approach outperforms uniformity of expertise; Hong and Page (2004) showed this is a mathematical, not merely empirical, result.

Connection to prior rounds: C3.5 extends Con-C.2.5 from the model level to the institutional level. Where C2.5 questioned whether 7 roles suffice as a scientific model, C3.5 questions whether the institutional host suppresses the paradigm diversity needed for scientific progress.

(Source: C3.5 from OOv1 Critique Round 3.)