"Normal science does not aim at novelties of fact or theory and, when successful, finds none"

Thomas Kuhn's statement in the quote essentially challenges conventional understandings of clinical progress. In the beginning look, it might appear counterintuitive to assert that "typical science does not focus on novelties of reality or theory", as science is typically commemorated for discovery and innovation. However, Kuhn's assertion is deeply rooted in his influential theory of clinical paradigms, especially talked about in his landmark work, "The Structure of Scientific Revolutions."

Kuhn's idea of "normal science" refers to research performed under the dominating paradigms, or established structures of theories and practices, within a scientific neighborhood. Throughout periods of normal science, scientists engage in solving puzzles that the current paradigm can address. Their primary goal is to elaborate, fine-tune, and articulate the paradigm instead of look for revolutionary or groundbreaking ideas. For this reason, regular science targets at strengthening the existing knowledge base by extending its scope or precision.

Kuhn recommends that normal science runs within the boundaries of what is already understood, mostly preventing locations that might challenge the existing paradigm. This is because researchers are deeply invested in the dominating structure, which supplies continuity and coherence to their work. In this context, the lack of novelties-- which Kuhn refers to as both realities and theories-- is not a failure of science but a trademark of the paradigm's strength and credibility during its period of supremacy.

However, Kuhn also indicates a limitation here. When anomalies-- unsolved puzzles or mysterious phenomena-- emerge and collect, they might, over time, provoke a clinical revolution. These revolutions produce novel paradigms, inclusive of brand-new realities and theories, ultimately changing the old structure. In essence, Kuhn mentions that considerable developments develop not throughout durations of regular science however rather through ruptures and shifts when paradigms alter.

Therefore, Kuhn's interpretation acknowledges the duality of scientific development as both evolutionary, through regular science, and revolutionary, through paradigm shifts, highlighting the complex characteristics that underpin the development of clinical understanding.