I think it’s important not to get caught up with semantics. As every parent knows, one person’s revolution is another’s disruption.

That’s why, if you noticed in my post, I was very careful to stick with strict definitions (Kuhn’s for revolutionary science and Christensen’s for disruptive innovation). These have very specific meanings and accomplish very different things.

I explained Christensen’s concept of disruptive innovation here: http://www.digitaltonto.com/2009/what-is-disruptive-innovation/

This is a Wikipedia entry for Kuhn’s revolutionary science: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Structure_of_Scientific_Revolutions

I also gave a short (but hopefully good) explanation of Kuhn’s ideas here: http://www.digitaltonto.com/2011/how-technology-evolves/

I realize that these are also terms that are used colloquially and that confuses things quite a bit, but that really can’t be helped. The best we can do is be as precise as we can.

– Greg