I don't think that Kuhn described this process as "flawed". He was an historian wo revealed for us a pattern that often plays itself out in actuality, where for

I don't think that Kuhn described this process as "flawed". He was an historian wo revealed for us a pattern that often plays itself out in actuality, where for scientific progress to continue, the proponents of the current orthodoxy have to grow old and retire, in order to allow the new paradigm in. This process is completely different from what we are typically taught. Also, what was not so apparent pre-Kuhn is that proponents of the new paradigm were often forced out of the field altogether if the time was not yet right. To conclude that this means that science is "flawed" is a value judgement. But it certainly means that it is not an idealized puck on a frictionless plain.