More buzz-stirring? Keep up the good work. But I think if you look at what Popper was doing, you will see that he started by studying what scientists do. Hence there is no "invasion of turf", any more than psychologists are "invading the turf" of the people whose response patterns they are studying. The issue is whether or not he understands science well enough to properly interpret what he sees, and scientists often conclude he did not, completely anyway.

For example, this thread, regardless of it's "intent", has made a powerful (and so far unsuccessfully challenged) case that "naive falsification" is not the process whereby science advances. That does not say that falsification plays "no role" as you claim it is saying-- it merely means its role is not a binary confirm/deny process. It's role is a bit more like the way the banks of a river interact with erosive processes to control the flow of water-- neither the water nor the bank has the "last word", there is a kind of dialog at work. In short, a more sophisticated model is needed to correctly interpret and understand what scientists are doing.

Personally, I don't know enough about Popper to know what is the largest "bone of contention", but I do feel that I know enough about science that Popper has little to tell me that I don't already know. But he is a historical figure, so it is impossible to know how many of his ideas already percolated through the scientific experience and informed the current understanding of scientists of their own art. All I'm saying is that at this moment, I'll pit my understanding of how science works against his any day, but that doesn't say he didn't make a contribution.