Does science consist in the progressive development of objective truth?

Does science consist in the bettermentive maturation of objective truth? Contrast the views of Kuhn with angiotensin-converting enzyme other writer on this topic.The philosopher and historian of science doubting Thomas Kuhn introduced the term paradigm as a key part of what he called radiation pattern science In normal (that is non revolutionary) periods in a science, on that point is a consensus across the pertinent scientific community about the theoretical and methodological rules to be followed. (Marshall 1998). Paradigms tend to set up 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 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 centre of the universe and that the sun did not revolve around the earth. This was a widely held belief up until, and tear down after there was proof to show that these beliefs were held falsely. Kuhn argued that the way scientists choose what abstract and theoretical framework (what "paradigm") they should apply in framing their scientific questions and in seeking to resolve scientific puzzles is necessarily heavily influenced by subjective factors, including prevailing social norms and conventions. This implies that scientific theories are subjective and wherefore so is the truth they aim to show. Kuhn argued that an old scientific paradigm is now and then displaced by a new one and that in some senses the scientist finds himself works in a different world. For Kuhn, what counts as true in one paradigm is different from what counts as true in a different paradigm. Another way of putting this is that truth does not rifle a scientific revolution. This means that Kuhn can be seen as a relativist as his argument suggests that there is no external reality by which we are able to mea legitimate the truth of scientific theories and that the truth changes with apiece new paradigm. Thomas Kuhn observed that science, as its actually practiced, isnt the logical and additive building up of a true picture of the world that it was in the main believed to be. He showed that there is no fixed, defined criterion for deciding bet... ...not there is an objective truth or reality. His main point is that scientific turn over 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 all the way changes so it cant be used in advance to decide one theory over another. Popper also argued that we can never be sure that our theories will never be falsified and so all knowledge or truth is provisional and can change. It seems therefore that although Popper seems to follow a realist neb 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, younger and Robert F. Hebert. A History of Economic Theory and Method. Fourth edition. New 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 Logic of Scientific Discovery. New York Basic Books, Inc., 1959.