[grey-area]

His book, as actually written, is mostly about the history of science.

From memory it's pretty straightforward, short, and not a difficult read. The themes dealt with are timeless IMO, and just as relevant today. I'd encourage anyone who hasn't read it to spend a few hours doing so.

[8bitsrule]

Yes. Before I read Kuhn, Popper, Polanyi and Feyerabend, I had naively thought of science as a means to a higher, more solid 'truth'. Over time I realized that (verified!) observations are more fundamental - bricks - than the interpretations (temples) made of those bricks.

[ngcc_hk]

After so many decade finally heard someone read the same set of books and feel great about them.

Kuhn is never bad.

[munificent]

But the bricks won't keep the rain off you.

The data is closest to reality, but without interpretation, we can't take useful action from it.

[spiderjerusalem]

Popper and Feyerabend are incompatible though. Feyerabend explicitly critiqued Popper.

[coldtea]

That doesn't make it incompatible as readings.

It's not even that one is right and the other is wrong.

Both can have right and wrong points we can adopt (even if either of them would want us to take all of their points wholesale).