In this paper I defend Kuhn’s view of scientific discovery, which involves two central

tenets, namely (i) that a scientific discovery always requires a discovery‐that (i.e., the

observation of X) and a discovery‐what (i.e., the correct conceptualisation of X), and (ii)

that there are two kinds of scientific discovery, resulting from the temporal order of the

discovery‐that and the discovery‐what. I identify two problems with Kuhn’s account

and offer solutions to them from a realist stance. Alternatives to Kuhn’s account are

also discussed.

All are welcome!