Where I think Kuhn went wrong, and really wrong at that, was in his suggestion that paradigms are totally incommensurable. Contrary to Kuhn, some paradigms are better than others and they can be judged so by some criteria which though they may be native to a more basic paradigm, are not necessarily a part of those paradigms which are under consideration.

Back to my point, the nonaccumulative nature of science is exactly what Kuhn sees as being the insuperable obstacle to calling science a mere body of knowledge or even a process of knowing. If science were simply a body or a process, then this would indeed strongly suggest an accumulative nature, but science is not accumuative so there must be, according to Kuhn, something else involved. This "something else" is what may of the more sophisticated religionists rely upon.

The main thing to remember in considering Kuhn, is that even though evolution/creationism or Newtonian mechanics/Einsteinian relativity make for great illustrations of paradigm shifts, they are the exceptions to the rule of what Kuhn sees as the typical, far less radical, paradigm shift. A paradigm shift simply is when the scientific community comes to recognize an earlier scientist as being wrong in some way. Thus all the data that the earlier scientist used to support his theory is, in effect, thrown out the window in terms of accumulation, and is instead given a reinterpretation. It is the fact that the scientific endeavor is necessarily interpretive that it cannot simply be a body or a process.

One big example is relativity. However, many components of relativity had been around for awhile such as the math and ideas. Einstein put it together. If he didn't, then another would have. However, what did it do to Newtonial physics? Not too much of a change there. We reclassify it as slow physics, but it is what is taught in high school and used most of the time. If there had been a true paradign shift, then we wouldn't be using Newtonian physics at all.

It seems to me that calling one's views a Kuhnian paradigm shift is a fancier version of comparing oneself to Galileo.

And a serious problem with Kuhn's concept is: how many really big paradigm shifts have there been in mainstream science?

I've attempted to evaluate that, and they are very hard to find. Science progresses in a cumulative fashion, and new theories usually incorporate old theories rather than overthrowing them.

There is one thing which I think you should reconsider in your post. You say that science is a way of knowing rather than a body of knowledge. Kuhn argues pretty persuasively against this when he shows that the way in which we approach knowing scientifically is largly contingent upon what the body of knowledge which we already have is. Thus he suggests that there is an inherent conservatism, which can easily be interpreted as "dogmatism", in the scietific process.

I've never thought Kuhn's thesis said anything especially interesting. Of course your sense of what's relevant and what to look for will be shaped by your existing background knowledge; there's nothing controversial about that, and it's as true for science as it is for any other field of human endeavor. But as I said, it's not necessary to know anything about the commonly accepted body of knowledge - the existing paradigm, if we want to use Kuhn's language - in order to think scientifically. It's just that knowing that information will probably save you some time, because rather than repeat efforts already carried out by others, you can focus your investigation on the boundaries of knowledge, the loose ends where our understanding is still incomplete. Sometimes those loose ends can be neatly tied up using that existing knowledge; sometimes pulling on them causes the whole tapestry to unravel.

BTW, The past couple times I have tried to post here, the security code has not been showing.

I'll look into it. What browser are you using? (Don't forget you can also register and bypass the captcha entirely.)

What of those claims that are not testable? First, they are outside
the realm of science, as you mention. If something is not testable, it
simply means science cannot adjudicate anything about it. All
metaphysical claims and religious claims are not testable, and
therefore outside the realm of science. But does that mean they bear
no witness to "truth?" If one's criteria is empiricism and
rationalism, then the answer is, Yes. But if one's sole criteria is
rationalism, then the answer is, No.

But look where rationalism has led us! Up more blind alleys than not.
Probably the paradigmatic example of rationalism is Thomas Aquinas's
Summa Theologica. Every proposition of that magisterial work is
rationalistic. The syllogism has never been put to better use. But if
the criterion is simply rationalism, then all sorts of theories can be
advanced, many that even conflict, because they lack grounding in the
one "other" feature of human experience, namely experience (e.g.,
empiricism).

Experience is the best teacher, states the adage, and indeed it is. We
can reason our way in and out of things willy-nilly, but we cannot
deny that our experience is true. The scientific method (as well as
some forms of pragmatism) extol experience for this very reason. If a
theory cannot be explained experientially and then tested, then
whatever else one holds as "true" must be sceptically received. But
once tested, then it is verified or negated, which determines what we
do with the information. Verified experience then becomes our norm or
default until or unless it is falsified.

So living itself is a form of the scientific method. By doing what we
do, we learn the most about life. The more it is tested and verified,
the stronger our conviction. So it is in the "doing," not in our
"knowing," that we ascertain life's features. I suggest the same is
true with the scientific method, which assumes this position, and
strengthens it.

Nevertheless, it is not so wrong for a person to expect true science to at least be in harmony with what they believe to be true. Of course at this point we aren't really talking about science anymore.

What people need to recognize is the science isn't meant to be a claim to all truth. The scientific method simply isn't qualified to deal with private evidence, and when it comes to religious beliefs, the evidence is almost all private.

There is one thing which I think you should reconsider in your post. You say that science is a way of knowing rather than a body of knowledge. Kuhn argues pretty persuasively against this when he shows that the way in which we approach knowing scientifically is largly contingent upon what the body of knowledge which we already have is. Thus he suggests that there is an inherent conservatism, which can easily be interpreted as "dogmatism", in the scietific process. It is this version of science, a Kuhnian version, which most religious intellectuals shore up most of their hopes, saying that their paradigm is simply different from that of the naturalist's.

BTW, The past couple times I have tried to post here, the security code has not been showing.