Interesting clarification, but at times, something like falsification or modification of previous views occurs. Kuhn's paradigms seem slightly more apt than the episteme-talk--but at times Aristotelian like issues may pop up (like when a Darwinist hack starts like praising the "success" of adaptation or something).

Kuhn-speak probably doesn't do much for conty. philosophers, but he at least understood process in a sense--including the institution of science, in a sense--how it operates. There's a sort of "factoid" science--"popular mechanics," more or less-- which generally ignores the context of research and discovery, IMHO. Most in Consumerland don't really understand how to intepret the results of some...research. It's like hula-hoops --a new planet! a new species! new neurological software! Most of those supposed discoveries mean little or nothing--certainly in astronomy that is the case.

Most scientific research functions ...within the free market. There's often a patent involved, research funds, academic issues, so forth--politics, really. As Feyerabend realized--the high-powered academic scientist generally works as an agent for technological capitalism, if not the US military.