In essay format answer those questions

1. Confirmation vs Falsification

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)?

2. The Rise of Scientific Thinking in the Renaissance.
Isaac Newton (1642-1727) wrote on the dedication page of his “Principia” (1687) “If I have seen further than other men it is only because I have stood on the shoulders of giants.” It was argued in lecture that the “giants” he had in mind were Copernicus, Kepler and Galileo
i. Copernicus (1473-1543), Kepler (1571-1630) and Galileo(1564-1642) all advocated a departure from the geocentric theory of the solar system proposed by Ptolemy a thousand years earlier in favor of a heliocentric theory. Discuss the socio-cultural impact of that shift on man’s view of the physical world and his place in it.
ii. Describe the metaphor of the clockwork universe and contrast it with a prescientific view of divine intervention in the operations of the physical world (As in Hildegarde of Bingen’s (1098-1179) phrase “[the world is ]” . . .a feather on the breath of God”. How did Kepler’s three laws of planetary motion support the metaphor of the clockwork universe? Show how operating within that metaphor contributed to the development of scientific discovery
iii. Over and above Galileo’s discovery of the moons of Jupiter, and the law of falling bodies, his invention of the hypothetico-deductive method as a tool in testing scientific theories may have been his most significant contribution. Describe the method showing how it combines deductive reasoning with empirical measurement.

3. Mind/Body Problem.
i. What is the problem regarding the relations of mental events to physical events? (What is it that scientists and philosophers object to about a world that has both physical and mental events?
ii. There have been two classes of "solution" to the problem, monism and dualism one. Give two examples of each, and explain what each proposes about M/B relations.
iii. Discuss the pros and cons of four proposed solutions (it need not be these four).
iv. What is your opinion on this issue and explain why you hold it.
v. Critique your position.
vi. Do you think a solution to this problem is important for a scientific psychology? (Why or why not?)
4. Darwinian and Lamarckian Theories of Evolution.
i. Explain how evolutionary change takes place according to the theory of natural selection.
ii Explain how evolutionary change takes place according to the doctrine of acquired characteristics.
iii. Which one of these seems to better explain biological evolution (and why)
iv. Can Lamarckian theory offer any explanation regarding the evolution of scientific ideas? Why do you think so or why do you think not?
v. Discuss the implications of a successful Lamarckian explanation regarding the issue of a rational (Popperian) vs. a non-rational (Kuhnian) account of the evolution of science.