Kuhn's model is not a prediction, it's a statement of fact how human accepted knowledge moves sometimes forward in huge paradigm shifts. Everyone "knew" that t

Kuhn's model is not a prediction, it's a statement of fact how human accepted knowledge moves sometimes forward in huge paradigm shifts. Everyone "knew" that the speed of light was constant, everyone "knew" earth had to be only couple of thousands of years old (e.g. Lord Kelvin was a firm believer in only a thousands of years based on his physically based estimates), atoms where quite a hard bargain to sell as anything as computational tools until you got some computations and Jean Perrin to do some experiments, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jean_Baptiste_Perrin https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jean_Baptiste_Perrin, continental plates where supposed to be solid fixations, until they weren't, etc. It's nice of Kuhn to point this out. Maybe it's convenient for administrators or something to realize accepted facts tend to change - but it gives absolutely no clue on how exactly move science forward. I don't really understand the huge uproar about Kuhn - his ideas should be "obvious" to anyone familiar with history of science. But maybe as professional management and pathological "professionalism" made it's headway in his time it was nice to point out that Gant chartable progress was not all there was to it.