Scientific revolution is seemingly an intrinsic part of human nature. Our natural inquisitiveness has allowed us to continuously discover things which we can confirm to be true in that the results are predictable. As scientific revolution moves into the 21st century, Kuhn appropriately highlights the technique of shifting paradigms, and the consequences apparent in the changing of the guard. In some cases, this shift occurs as a cumulative effect, where the new paradigm not only borrows, but relies on previously established cultures for life. As Kuhn explains, these cultures are defined by their accepted theories and methods, tools valuable to the progression of the science. However, Kuhn’s example of the inquiries into gravity show that often times it is not a cumulative effect required to garner revolution, but a complete break from previous thinking. Finally, Kuhn admits that it is not really an either or scenario as to whether paradigms are improving scientific qualities, but what is the more important problem to solve? In architecture, this is an on going contemporary debate, I would say, between the paradigm of ecological and sustainable design strategies and maximum contextual integration of flows and space. In one regard, the ecological paradigm is looking to solve a very current problem surrounding climate change while the other looks to improve habitation not just for the sake of natural resources, but to create better symbiotic relationships in the human ecology. Which is the better problem to solve? What other problems are there?