From Bohm-Peat-1968-Science-order-and-creativity p. 25 - 30
Kuhn argues that following a scientific-revolution, the new paradigm is incommensurable with the old paradigm. His definition, highlighted by Bohm and Pete, implies that no such measure between the two is possible, i.e. they are mutually irrelevant.
A counter-case for this, however, is the Copernican-Revolution. Rather than a sudden dislocation of concepts, the revolution involved a gradual change. Significant changes occured well into the normal science period that followed, with scientists at the time actively engaging and debating with both worldviews simultaneously. The older infrastructure of Aristotelian ideas slowly eroded under the implications of Newtonian ideas, making it difficult to clearly mark where the revolution ended and the normal science began.
This undermines Kuhn’s sharp boundary between revolutionary and normal-science. This leads to Bohm-Peat-1968-Science-order-and-creativity thesis that if creative dialogue between paradigms was possible during the Copernican transition, then the radical creativity Kuhn reserves for revolutionary periods is not bounded there — it can occur more continuously.