Not Kuhn's fault, but this book started a different kind of revolution:
> Postmodernists interpreted Thomas Kuhn's ideas about scientific paradigms to mean that scientific theories are social constructs, and philosophers like Paul Feyerabend argued that other, non-realist forms of knowledge production were better suited to serve people's personal and spiritual needs.
> Kuhn described the development of scientific knowledge not as a linear increase in truth and understanding, but as a series of periodic revolutions which overturned the old scientific order and replaced it with new orders (what he called "paradigms"). Kuhn attributed much of this process to the interactions and strategies of the human participants in science rather than its own innate logical structure.
> Some interpreted Kuhn's ideas to mean that scientific theories were, either wholly or in part, social constructs, which many interpreted as diminishing the claim of science to representing objective reality
That is some unknown people's broad-based interpretation of others' interpretations of Kuhn's theories of science. That is far from the source and through a filter of unknown accuracy - very unscientific!
With the caveat that it has been well argued that "scientific revolutions" are an artefact of historical compression rather than real phenomenon that was experienced by participants in said "revolution"
I'm pretty sure his conclusion was that new paradigms take hold by the previous generation dying/retiring. So I'm not sure how much compression that really is.
Sure. In the last 100 years, "bohr's" non-deterministic quantum physics has all but overtaken "einstein's" deterministic physics. The final nail in the coffin for einstein will be a theory of quantum gravity. Can't get a bigger paradigm shift than switching from a deterministic to a non-deterministic world.
In neuroscience absolutely, from behaviorism, to the cognitive sciences, to modern techniques of every grain size. Psychology is still awash though in pseudoscience.
