It seems to me that the philosophers of science Thomas Kuhn and Sir Karl Popper were to some extent in agreement. Both believed there is no way of telling whether science is moving toward or away from ontological fact, let alone know if current theories are ontologically true, but that it can be said that science is becoming ever more increasingly precise in “puzzle-solving”. Although they differ in how they come to this conclusion (For Popper, his attempt to solve the problem of demarcation lead him to the methodological theory of falsification, which says you cannot say anything is true or false, only that it hasn’t been falsified; whereas Kuhn’s attempt to delineate the new image of science that was emerging from the work of historians of science, such as Koyré and Metzger, lead him to the idea of paradigms and paradigm shifts, where it can only be said a theory is acceptable within a given paradigm, not that it is an ontological fact), I cannot understand why scientists dismissed Thomas Kuhn as a relativist, but heralded Sir Karl Popper as the greatest philosopher of science in the 20th century.
Can someone explain to me why, while Sir Karl Popper was being knighted by the queen of England, Thomas Kuhn was being attacked and marginalized?