Kuhn's view of the development of scientific theory has it that changes in paradigms mean that a scientist cannot compare paradigms with one another to determine which one is objectively better since the paradigms define the terms of debate. If I am in one paradigm, supposedly, I am viewing others from its lens.
In Kuhn's understanding of scientific development, the shift from one paradigm to another is ‘arational’. That is, not rational and not subject to rational considerations of evidence/theoretical simplicity.
However, the examples often given as cases of this kind of ‘arational’ paradigm shift include:
Newtonian Gravity to General Relativity
Luminiferous ether theory to the electromagnetic field oscillations.
There are many other cases other than these and these cases, in the scientific literature, are quite clearly justified by appeal to empirical evidence. GR made better novel predictions than Newton's gravity and the luminiferous ether theory made failed predictions so was abandoned. I’m not saying that these kinds of predictions make these theories automatically and completely true (since there are other philosophical issues involved there) but as far as the scientific literature shows, the preference of one ‘paradigm’ over another is experimentally and theoretically justified.
What am I missing here? Is Kuhn saying that, although it seems as though these considerations are rational, they're not. They're secretly arational?
Also, how are Kuhn's ideas on this generally received? Since (from what I've seen cited) the vast majority of philosophers identify themselves as scientific realists. How is this idea of Kuhn's generally responded to if most philosophers seem to reject it (or at least don't acknowledge it as true)?