Does science consist in the progressive development of objective truth?

Does science consist in the modernised development of documentary rightfulness? Contrast the views of Kuhn with one other source on this topic.The philosopher and historian of science Thomas Kuhn introduced the term double as a key part of what he called normal science In normal (that is non revolutionary) periods in a science, at that place is a consensus across the pertinent scientific community about the theoretical and methodo pellucid rules to be followed. (Marshall 1998). Paradigms tend to mistake all over time as new scientific discoveries are made, and anomalies or observations that conflict with the current paradigm begin to accumulate. Eventually this leads to a scientific revolution. There is a shift from one paradigm to a nonher(prenominal) and a new period of normal science begins. So, what seems to be scientifically relevant at one time may not be so in years to come. An example of a paradigm shift would be when it was discovered that Earth was not the centr e of the universe and that the sunlight did not revolve around the earth. This was a widely held belief up until, and even after there was proof to show that these beliefs were held falsely. Kuhn argued that the way scientists submit what conceptual and theoretical framework (what "paradigm") they should apply in inclose their scientific questions and in seeking to resolve scientific puzzles is necessarily severely influenced by unverifiable factors, including prevailing social norms and conventions. This implies that scientific theories are subjective and therefore so is the truth they aim to show. Kuhn argued that an old scientific paradigm is occasionally displaced by a new one and that in any(prenominal) senses the scientist finds himself working in a different demesne. For Kuhn, what counts as dead on target in one paradigm is different from what counts as true in a different paradigm. Another way of putting this is that truth does not survive a scientific revol ution. This means that Kuhn can be seen as a relativist as his argument suggests that there is no external earth by which we are able to measure the truth of scientific theories and that the truth changes with each new paradigm. Thomas Kuhn observed that science, as its actually practiced, isnt the logical and cumulative building up of a true picture of the world that it was generally believed to be. He showed that there is no fixed, defined criterion for decision making bet... ...not there is an objective truth or reality. His main point is that scientific progress is a continuing refinement of our ideas about what might be the case. He says theres no single criterion for selecting one theory over another, not even success at predicting phenomena. The only judge is the consensus of the scientific community, and that clearly changes so it cant be used in advance to settle one theory over another. Popper also argued that we can never be sure that our theories will never be falsif ied and so all noesis or truth is provisional and can change. It seems therefore that although Popper seems to follow a realist account of scientific progress and Kuhn a relativist one, that actually they both believed that there is progress in science but that we could not know if we were progressing towards an objective truth..Ekelund, Robert, Jr. and Robert F. Hebert. A History of Economic Theory and Method. Fourth edition. overbold York The McGraw-Hill Companies, Inc.Kuhn, Thomas S. The Structure of Scientific Revolutions. Second edition. Chicago The University of Chicago Press, 1970.Popper, Karl R. The logical system of Scientific Discovery. New York Basic Books, Inc., 1959.