Do successive scientific revolutions converge on the truth?

I have been attending meetings of a philosophy meetup, led by a working philosopher. The last few meetings were discussions of the very influental The Structure of Scientific Revolutions, by Thomas Kuhn.

Greatly oversimplifying, Kuhn says that with new theories science experiences major changes in how the world is viewed (think of quantum mechanics and relativity). The new theories are more accurate and have wider applicability, but in Kuhn’s view, they are not in any sense necessarily closer to actual scientific truth. A future revolution in physics may completely replace the views first developed in the 20th century.

I prefer to believe that at each stage science moves a little closer to a final truth. For example, at speeds much lower than the speed of light, Newton’s equations are good approximations to relativistic ones. I like to think of successive science theories as being refinements of previous ones. There are others who think this way. The Nobel laureate physicist wrote a book titled Dreams of a Final Theory, that expresses this viewpoint.

As part of the educated public, I would be interested in how you feel about this.