The diverse nesting structure of the sequential conflicts in this story expresses a world of radical instability, a world in which no resolution leads to peace. The competition is continuous and instable throughout the book. During this phase of the war, several characters attempted to assume authority in order to fulfill their personal agenda and acquire self-gratification. Nevertheless, it is often by themselves that these characters could not carry out the tasks they wished to accomplish. Rather, they were quick to influence and beg others in order to get the job completed. Throughout the story, the characters are constantly in help of others in their battle of authority.
At first, dispute arose due to the greed of Agamemnon. Then, Achilles extends the problem by being adamant when Athena disallows him from continuing his argument. To prove his authority over the others, he convinces his mother to plead to Zeus to help the Trojans so "that Atreus' son wide-ruling Agamemnon may be familiar with his madness, that he did no respect to the best of the Achaians.” (Lombardo, 1977) Being a leader, Achilles did not think of the consequences of his actions and how those decisions affected the people he lead. Moreover, rather than assuming responsibility of his actions, Achilles places blame on his mother Thetis and Zeus. As shown in the Iliad, Homeric leadership is really unstable because it is subject of much controversy within Iliad. The power of the leaders in Iliad is based upon the leader’s ability to act as redistributors.
Science cannot conduct experiment without a set of beliefs. These sets of beliefs are what form the foundations of the “educational initiation that prepares and licenses the student for professional practice.” This ensures that the beliefs are properly understood. Research is "a strenuous and devoted attempt to force nature into the conceptual boxes supplied by professional education.” (Kuhn, 2012) A change in assumptions takes place when a discrepancy weakens the basic rules of the current scientific practice. These shifts are what Kuhn describes as scientific revolutions. A change in a current theory that results in the discovery of a new or an updated theory is also passed by the awareness of difference. A new theory is generated when the current theory keeps on failing. These failures can be observed by discrepancies between the theories and the facts. When theories are in the inception stage, it is easy to propose alternatives but when the theories are established, it is difficult to propose substitutes. This continuous crisis loosens the theoretical stereotypes.
The irregularities between the theories and fact results in crises; which calls for new a theory or a change in the current paradigm. The crises begin when the theories start getting diminished and start losing credibility. To overcome the crisis, normal science has to be able to handle the problem created by the crisis, or, the problem is ignored, or new candidate most likely to replace the current theory emerges. Realization and attentiveness of that crisis exists will help deal with crises. Normal science does and must continually strive to bring theory and fact into closer agreement. Crises are unavoidable part of the scientific research. This complexity is the main reason for tension and crises. There are always multiple perspectives when it comes to normal science puzzles. When we have more than one perspective on one theory we have contradiction in thoughts of scientist.
In Homer’s Iliad, the shift in power is dramatic and can be felt throughout the book just like how a paradigm works. Just how irregularities in facts and theories results in crises; change in the authority during the Iliad shifted the favor drastically. In the scientific revolution, Kuhn describes the beginning of crisis when the theories start getting diminished and to overcome it, it has to be solved in certain ways. This is comparable to how the