I am continuing to use the break afforded by Thanksgiving to re-read Kuhn, partly in response to a recent comment on the blog, but more in response to a friend who protested enthusiastically when I recently dissed Kuhn. Final conclusions await my completion of my re-reading, but I note that Kuhn makes reference to the philosophy of science of "the positivist." I am unable to determine exactly who this character is. It is certainly not Carnap, or Neurath, or Schlick for that matter. Even Ayer doesn't fit very well, though he may be the closest fit (if so, the allusion to "early Logical Positivism" is quite inappropriate, of course). Rather, "the positivist" seems to be some horrible Frankenstein's monster, constructed by blending together mostly the worst elements of Schlick, Popper, and Ayer (Popper, of course, not even having been a positivist).
So, one preliminary criticism of Kuhn; he seems determined to impose a Whiggish, progressive narrative on the history of the philosophy of science, as evolving from a positivist conception toward the sort of philosophy of science he favors, which seems to fit the history of the philosophy of science even more poorly than he claims such views fit the history of science.