To summarize Kuhn’s perspective, …
… normal science fills in and extends the existing network of Good Ideas, and does not aim in any way to produce any fundamental revisions in how scientists see the world. Ironically, however, this normal work itself inevitably turns up anomalies and inconsistencies, and leads to the growth of an internal stress within the existing fabric of ideas. And when this maladjustment reaches some threshold, that fabric, and the normal science based on it, breaks down. Scientists then find that they cannot go further by accumulation and extension, but have to tear apart and rebuild some portion of the existing network. – Ubiquity
Normal science…whether historically or in the contemporary laboratory…seems an attempt to force nature into the preformed and relatively inflexible box that the paradigm supplies. No part of the aim of normal science is to call forth new sorts of phenomena; indeed those that will not fit the box are often not seen at all.
…normal science repeatedly goes astray. And when it does—when, that is, the profession can no longer evade anomalies that subvert the existing tradition of scientific practice—then begin the extraordinary investigations that lead the profession at last to a new set of commitments, a new basis for the practice of science. The extraordinary episodes in which that shift of professional commitments occurs are… scientific revolutions. They are the tradition-shattering complements to the tradition-bound activity of normal science.If the ideas on which it has depended increasingly fail to deliver results, even a small group may experience the same basic pattern of change:
Partly because of the examples I have chosen and partly because of my vagueness about the nature and size of the relevant communities, a few readers of this book have concluded that my concern is primarily or exclusively with major revolutions such as those associated with Copernicus, Newton, Darwin, or Einstein….A revolution is for me a special sort of change involving a certain sort of reconstruction of group commitments. But it need not be a large change, nor need it seem revolutionary to those outside a single community, consisting of perhaps fewer than twenty-five people. It is just because this type of change, little recognized or discussed in the literature of the philosophy of science, occurs so regularly on this smaller scale that revolutionary, as opposed to cumulative, change so badly needs to be understood.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Structure_of_Scientific_Revolutions