Here is an expanded, multi-act play dramatizing the philosophical conflict and personal effort to foster a paradigm shift in AIDS research.
The Paradigm Shift: A Play in Three Acts
Here are the three Characters
Rebecca Culshaw – Mathematician and critic of AIDS orthodoxy
Karl Popper – Philosopher of science, logic-driven
Thomas Kuhn – Philosopher of science, historically minded
The Colleague – A skeptical scientist (optional for Act II-III)
Act I – The Summoning
Setting: Culshaw’s cluttered study at midnight. A window is open, letting in a cold breeze.
Culshaw is hunched over papers. Suddenly, mysterious figures materialize.
Popper (stepping closer): Rebecca, do you know why we have come?
Culshaw (startled but curious): I sense you bear advice.
Kuhn (smiling softly): Your struggle echoes in the halls of scientific history. Few have challenged entrenched paradigms and lived to see the world change.
Culshaw: The AIDS narrative is unyielding. Criticism draws scorn, not reasoned dialogue. How do I crack this shell?
Popper: Treat the theory as a scientific hypothesis. Identify its core claims. What would it take to disprove them? Ask the establishment this at every turn.
Kuhn: Yet do not forget, paradigm shifts require more than refutation. You must nurture a community—make them feel the cracks and offer a new framework.
Popper: Truth is not a popularity contest, Kuhn.
Kuhn: But consensus rules until new puzzles make the old vision unbearable.
Culshaw: You mean I need both: a demonstration of failure and a replacement vision?
Popper & Kuhn (together): Precisely.
Fade out.
Act II – Testing the Fortress
Setting: A scientific conference. Culshaw stands before a skeptical audience, including The Colleague.
Culshaw: Suppose key HIV tests predict nothing about immune decline. Suppose AIDS definitions are shifting sands. What, then, does our theory become?
Colleague: You twist anomalies into attacks. What of the millions of lives believed saved?
Popper: (now imagined at her shoulder) Demand evidence. Show that lives were saved by measurable intervention, not just by post hoc rationalization.
Kuhn: Frame your findings as questions that the current theory cannot answer. Let the audience witness the struggle.
Culshaw: Here are cases where test and disease do not align, where drugs harm, where predictions fail. This is not a collection of quirks—it is a crisis.
Colleague: Science will patch these gaps.
Popper: Only if the patches themselves are testable—not ad hoc excuses.
Kuhn: And as the failures accumulate and the story loses coherence, your role shifts. Offer new lenses through which researchers can view their puzzles anew.
Culshaw: I will. Here is a framework where immune collapse arises from multifactor exposures, not a virus. Here predictions become clear, testable, vulnerable to refutation.
Colleague (uncertain): It is bold, but is it enough?
Popper: Make it falsifiable.
Kuhn: Make it irresistible.
Fade to black.
Act III – Turning the Tide
The Setting: Culshaw’s study, months later. She pores over data. Papers about her new model are being discussed worldwide.
Popper: Are your ideas withstanding scrutiny?
Culshaw: Some have tried to refute them. Some admit their theories don’t predict as well.
Kuhn: Is a community embracing the new framework?
Culshaw: Slowly. Some see the anomaly pattern. Some consider new research. The old guard resists—naturally.
Popper: The measure is not in popularity, but precision. Do not shy from critique.
Kuhn: And always tend to the new paradigm’s coherence. Invite others to build upon it. A real shift is communal.
Culshaw: Thank you, Karl. Thank you, Thomas. Let science decide—through rigor, vision, and openness—not through the chill of consensus alone.
Popper and Kuhn fade, their voices echoing:
Popper: Progress thrives on falsification.
Kuhn: And transformation blooms with imagination.
Culshaw, alone, presses onward, her desk now a beacon among the cluttered battleground of ideas.
End.
Our TOPPODCAST Picks 
Stay Connected
