In article , "Robert L.
Oldershaw" writes:

"Always self-correcting"? Not by the leaders of the community, nor by
the obedient majority of its members. Kuhn's "normal science" is
notoriously bad at correcting the most fundamental errors in the
foundational assumptions.

As has been pointed out many times, you seem to blindly assume that
Kuhn's analysis is correct, indeed that it must be correct, almost as if
he were some sort of prophet.

As for the mavericks: Einstein was awarded the Nobel Prize (and many
other awards) within a few years of his discoveries. Looks like
acceptance by the community to me. Galileo's problems were not so much
with the scientific community but rather with the Church.

Of course new ideas come along---that is how science progresses. But
the idea that old paradigms are kept on life support until the old
fogeys die or some revolutionary overthrows them is just not supported
by the historical data.

Suppose Kuhn is just waffling nonsense. Then it is a waste of time to
consider his ideas. On the other hand, suppose his ideas are real
science backed up by data. Then, by his own petard, so to speak, his
ideas will be superseded by a new paradigm, so again no reason to waste
time on them.