"Kuhn's book is philosophy and social science. It is not a science book."
What would "science" be without the underpinning of a (still evolving) philosophy of science? The only thing that sets alchemy or astrology apart from physics, chemistry and astronomy is the difference in the underlying philosophies, and the methods, procedures and protocols developed on the basis of that philosophy.
Kuhn was a "hard scientist". See:
http://www.des.emory.edu/mfp/Kuhnsnap.html
"Thomas Samuel Kuhn was born on July 18, 1922, in Cincinnati, Ohio, United States. He received a Ph. D. in physics from Harvard University in 1949 and remained there as an assistant professor of general education and history of science. In 1956, Kuhn accepted a post at the University of California--Berkeley, where in 1961 he became a full professor of history of science. In 1964, he was named M. Taylor Pyne Professor of Philosophy and History of Science at Princeton University. In 1979 he returned to Boston, this time to the Massachusetts Institute of Technology as professor of philosophy and history of science. In 1983 he was named Laurence S. Rockefeller Professor of Philosophy at MIT."
" What would "science" be without the underpinning of a (still evolving) philosophy of science?"Science.
Science never changes. It is rational thought in a search for true knowledge and understanding regarding the real world; that can be and is verified by the scientific method. It's that simple.
The philosophy of science is not unique. Anyone with a pen can write their opinion. They are certainly not going to write a book on what science is, because I just gave the entire contents in the last paragraph. If their going to write a book, they have to do something else, like history of, philosophy of, or write about some particulars. Some folks write science fiction. ect...
" Kuhn was a "hard scientist". "
That's nice.