I'm not afraid of flying: where I disagree with Kuhn

So I managed to read Kuhn's The Structure of Scientific Revolutions and although I liked lot of it -- because it contained ideas that I either previously had in a less developed form or ideas which I find agreeable and am now evaluating -- I think it also got a lot wrong. My less major issues are with the rigidity of a paradigm to limit scientific thought and experimentation. Kuhn gives an example of Galileo and an aristotelian observing a pendulum (or a falling rock as he claimed the aristotelian would call it). Kuhn claims that their respective paradigms would limit their measurements and vocabulary in such a way that they would not approve each others' methods and thus be unable to really communicate. The aristotelian would see the rope as arresting the rock's fall and would measure just the rock's height when released and how long it took to come to rest. Galileo would see an oscillator and measure it's period, the length of the rope, the weight of the rock, and so on. In short Galileo measured everything the aristotelian did and then some. If these people met their different paradigms would prevent the aristotelian from seeing any utility in these extra measurements and they would be summarily ignored because they were not useful in seeing some arrested falling. In short, it would be something like this. I just cant see paradigms being that powerful; data is data and the larger quantities and more varied the better. Fudging answers to fit paradigms is for graded labs assignments. If paradigms are so powerful, no one but crackpots should be doing trying to discover antigravity. However respected organizations like NASA, Boeing, and BAE systems are putting money into such research! Where is the all powerful paradigm now? Lastly Kuhn claims that moving from paradigm to paradigm mightn't be progress. Kahn even uses the word faith. It's sort of a coke or pepsi choice. "Oh that new paradigm looks nice. It's such a lovely shade of blue! I'll switch!" However, there has been obvious technical progress, and technical progress is driven by science. At the very least, science must progress from a paradigm which can make create some devices that work, to a paradigm that creates more devices that work. That paradigm that claims nothing heavier than air can fly is replaced by one that claims the opposite. That's progress.

Richard Dawkins provably writes it better:

How should scientists respond to the allegation that our "faith" in logic and scientific truth is just that--faith--not "privileged" over alternative truths? An obvious response is that science gets results. As I once wrote, "Show me a cultural relativist at 30,000 feet, and I'll show you a hypocrite. ...If you are flying to an international congress of anthropologists or literary critics, the reason you will probably get there--the reason you don't plummet into a ploughed field--is that a lot of Western scientifically trained engineers have got their sums right." Science supports its claim to truth by its spectacular ability to make matter and energy jump through hoops, and to predict what will happen and when.