Topic: Confirmation vs Falsification

Paper details: Popper has criticized the traditional approach to testing scientific theories by suggesting that confirmation is not an appropriate strategy for gathering evidence in support of a scientific theory. i. Explain Popper's reasons for holding this view. ii. Present his alternative to it, and explain the differences between the more traditional view and this alternative. iii. Explain the difference between the "naive" and the "sophisticated" version of falsificationism including in your answer the relevance of Lakotos' "protective belt". iv. What is the difference between a "progressive" and "degenerating problem shift" in a research program? How does this difference give credibility to the notion that a scientist may continue to defend a theory on rational grounds (Popper and Lakotos) even when that theory has generated hypotheses that have been falsified? v. Explain why Popper believes that psychoanalysis could not, in its present form, be a scientific theory. vi. If one were to adopt Thomas Kuhn's (1962) earlier approach, is there any argument that might be utilized to defend the idea that psychoanalytic theory may be considered a scientific discipline? If so, state and evaluate what that argument is. Would Kuhn's later revised theory (1970) reject psychoanalytic theory as scientific (explain)?