It seems to me that there are really two kinds of scientific theory being
discussed in this thread.  Those which are "superb" in Penrose's
terminology, that is they predict experimental data very accurately and
those which are not.

Kuhn did agree that there were real criteria that could be used to decide
scientific issues  and I am sure he would apply them to "superb" theories,
he was a physicist after all.  In any case, it seems to me you can find
every interpretation in Kuhn somewhere.

The accusation of lying that SDV is making is not about the twelth
significant figure in data.  It is about theories in which even the first
significant figure is not yet known.  I suggest it is to these fields that
Kuhn was making his comments about "mob rule" in science.  There have been
fields in which scientific theory has become wrapped up with the vested
political, financial or social and career imperatives of a particular group.
I venture that this phenomenon gives rise to lying.  I think it occurs both
within science and in the way science interacts with the community at large.

Actually, in BSE, I don't see much evidence of outright lying and I am a
real Brit.  Lying is generally seen as a falsehood uttered with knowledge of
its falsity.  I see evidence of ignorance, of a political imperative to
appear knowledgeable.  In situations like that "I don't know" is simply not
what the paymasters of science want to hear.  As a result, once a cockeyed
direction is taken, it is very difficult to change.

One final comment.  I now realise that Brad is a Hegelian.  This is probably
why I can't understand him - I did try to get into Hegel once and, to me,
his writings just seemed obscure and meaningless.  On Hegel, I agree with
Nietzsche and
Schopenhauer.

Sincerely

John Hewitt