The general criterion is the relative puzzle-solving power of the competing paradigms. The new idea should account for most or all of the anomalies that led to the breakdown of the previous paradigm, while minimizing so-called "Kuhn-loss" (usually to be found in the new ideas having less explanatory power). Generally, the factors that lead to the adoption of the new theory come from within the scientific community, not without. I think most readers of Kuhn would agree that this is a fair assessment of Kuhn's position.
So Kuhn did admit that science progressively increases in its puzzle-solving ability. He does deny that the concept of science becoming progressively "nearer to the truth" is coherent (and there I disagree).
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
no subject
Date: 2005-11-16 10:49 pm (UTC)So Kuhn did admit that science progressively increases in its puzzle-solving ability. He does deny that the concept of science becoming progressively "nearer to the truth" is coherent (and there I disagree).