In the beginning, historians assured every advancement in terms of science was built upon the finding of a previous discovery. This way of thinking was rational at the time because it makes sense in the human mind. An easy example would be if a person were hunting for food, he might come up with a new trap to catch his prey. As we know today, this thinking is flawed because it doesn’t account for other anomalies that could help drive scientific advancement. This way of thinking was too small and one dimensional, which led to an initial breakthrough in scientific thinking. In 1962, a man by the name of Thomas Kuhn created the idea of the paradigm, “a set of rules and conventions that govern the definition of the term, the collection of data, and the boundaries of inquiry” (Johnson 44). This way of thinking broadened the picture in the realm of scientific advancement. It is no longer just paving a road where one goes in a straight line. It is an open area for scientists and historians to explore and think freely instead of molding something to match the previous discovery. But alas, this again was too small because there were many different open areas all around. Johnson explains the flaw with this thinking; it doesn’t account for the impact of technology, society, and politics (45). The paradigm assumes all scientific progress is made in a room untouched by the influence of modern society. This leads to the current model of thinking about science, which is the ecosystem theory. The ecosystem theory says everything connects together in one way or another. The open fields in the paradigm view have all come together. This helps us understand that scientific advancement in different fields helps accelerate other discoveries. If a chemist finds a new element, this might lead a microbiologist to find a new organism that feeds off that element. This interconnectedness is the current way historians look at scientific advancement. Who knows, maybe this way of thinking might be proven wrong in a hundred years.