The clash between Popper and Kuhn is not about a mere technical point in epistemology.
Sentiment: NEGATIVE
Much of what Karl Popper contributed to the philosophy of science has now passed into mainstream thought, into the currency of that nebulous, tricky ontology known as 'common sense.'
Kuhn was the intellectual of whom many scientists said he's 'telling it as is it is' insofar as talking about a process of 'tinkering' in terms of theory and experiment followed by radical changes. But often, what Kuhn had in mind were some very spectacular incidents in the history of the sciences that changed our way of looking at the world.
Indeed, this epistemological theory of the relation between theory and experiment differs sharply from the epistemological theory of naive falsificationism.
Pop culture is a reflection of social change, not a cause of social change.
There is no body of theory or significant body of relevant information, beyond the comprehension of the layman, which makes policy immune from criticism.
There is no controversy within science over the core proposition of evolutionary theory.
Pop concerts create an audience for Pops concerts, not an audience for classical symphonic concerts.
There is no falsification before the emergence of a better theory.
Pop knew absolutely nothing about pro football.
It is not necessary to understand things in order to argue about them.