Kuhn's example of a paradigm shift would immediately refute Carnap's argument. If scientists are in different paradigms, they do not recognize that certain scientific terminologies have the same meaning in nature. (Kuhn 1962) Although Kuhn's argument is not directed against reductionism, we can use his argument to say that Carnap's defense of reductionism is not a sufficient defense and can easily be refuted. Feyerabend also criticized the reductionist view with an argument that would have been similar to Kuhn's. He similarly stated that universal language is problematic due to similar terms having different meanings; this would immediately refute any chance we have of reducing all sciences to a single universal language. (Feyerabend 1962) We cannot have a universal language because scientists cannot agree on mutual definitions at all, probably because they belong to two different paradigms and have different understandings of terminology. Deriving theories from biology and reducing them to chemistry/physics would make it impossible to correctly translate the theories into chemical or physical language. This is because biological terms seem similar to chemical/physical terms but mean something different – ​​none of the information that would be reduced would be reduced as accurate biological information because their meanings and theories would be misinterpreted due to the collision of terms in sciences. In other words, the definition of a chemical element may not have the same meaning when defined in physical or biological terms. This shows that biology is not comparable to physics and chemistry because their definitions, languages, etc. are different. do not match. Such overlap would cause the scientific field to malfunction, because nothing would be clear – there would be constant confusion.,