That doesn't invalidate the scientific method You're right, but neither I nor Kuhn ever said that it did. In fact, he echoes your thoughts about how models rep

That doesn't invalidate the scientific method You're right, but neither I nor Kuhn ever said that it did. In fact, he echoes your thoughts about how models replace one another: First, the new candidate must seem to resolve some outstanding and generally recognized problem that can be met in no other way. Second, the new paradigm must promise to preserve a relatively large part of the concrete problem solving activity that has accrued to science through its predecessors. He doesn't deny that there is such a thing as scientific progress, he only means to model scientific progress as an episodic cycle in which existing paradigms present with insoluble problems, and that these problems are only resolved when the old paradigm is replaced. It wasn't so long ago that Einstein declared that God doesn't play dice with the universe. Kuhn doesn't deny the existence of scientific facts or the utility of the scientific method -- he only hopes to illustrate that the notion of scientific truth is contingent on certain assumptions and that these assumptions often get in the way of future progress. It's also important to remember that Kuhn wrote "The Structure of Scientific Revolutions" back in 1962. At that time, he was largely responding to the logical positivists. While I think a lot of the contemporary rationalist movement is caught up in old logical positivist modes of thought, your own willingness to invalidate models based on evidence wasn't fully developed before Kuhn and Popper brought such thinking into the mainstream.