A response to Thomas Kuhn's "The Structure of Scientific Revolution" Specifically on Establishing "normal science"

link to the article: https://www.theguardian.com/science/2012/aug/19/thomas-kuhn-structure-scientific-revolutions

The article posted on "The Guardian" emphasize the true definition and understanding of science in reference to Thomas Khun's book The Structure of Scientific Revolution. However, the book and its credibility are still up for debate as Khun himself is not a philosophist, but a physicist. Khun develops theories in which creates a new category for science he labeled as "normal science".  

To response, I'd like to evaluate the disagreement between Karl Popper a philosopher of science in 1962 and Thomas Khun himself. Karl Popper states that "real scientists were distinguished by the fact that they tried to refute rather than confirm their theories". In which contradicts with Khun's theory that suggests that it is the refuting a theory is the last thing a "normal scientist" seek to do. 

With both theories embedded and understood, I was able to choose a theory I lean in towards most. Without much persuasion nor prior knowledge, I identify with Karl Popper's theory most - that scientific evidence is to be proven by refuting its credibility. 

WHY

If a scientific theory is proven valid thorough only statements and facts that support the theory, the conclusion would be heavily biased. In which we had established in all our TOK classes that the coloration between science and subjective or biased point of views must be abolished as it creates a barrier in acquiring knowledge. A pro supported theory would only provide a one-sided equation and conclusion, it does not explore possibilities that could lead to more knowledge. 

However, if a theory were to be proven through a list of things that opposed it, yet was still able to justify and disprove the concerns, the theory could be considered valid - or at least more valid than the theories that were proven through facts and statements are resonates with it. A theory that is proven to be true by trying to refute it shows credibility due to the fact that it provides two sides to argue with. By providing sides to a theory gives an individual the power to gain more knowledge. It also gives factors that show it's credibility by proving the concerns wrong.

Hence, this short analysis of a response to Thomas Kuhn's theory is what I gathered and conclude from the article.