Introduction To be able to discuss this question, it is important to first analyse Karl Popper and Thomas Kuhn’s scientific theories and how they evolve. It will then be discussed whether or not their scientific theories do in fact contribute to the development and advancement of science as well as how this contribution takes place. Finally, a conclusion will be drawn which will summarise the outcome of this investigation as well as taking into account the case study presented in the study guide. Karl Popper’s Falsification Wally (2010, p.43 - 45) indicates that Popper’s view on science is that ever-increasing problems and ever-increasing fertility, create new problems which need to be solved. Popper believed that problems are solved by the formulation of scientific theories. These new hypotheses cannot be justified through the step by step thought process that discovered it, but rather by subjecting it to logical tests. He argues that deduction is more reliable than induction. It was his opinion that a hypothesis should be tested as thoroughly as possible. If it withstands the most stringent tests, it may be considered corroborated and accepted as provisionally true, understanding that a new test proving the hypothesis false could be discovered at any time. Therefore according to Popper, we can prove beyond doubt that our hypothesis is false but can never definitely prove it to be true due to the lack favourable empirical evidence. According to an article by (McHenry, n.d.) in Popper’s book, The Logic of Scientific Discovery, he rejected the inductivist view of the development of scientific knowledge. He stated that science does not progress by gathering knowledge based on what was accepted in earlier theories as being correct, but rather by proving previous theories false. He believed that the falsification of a theory means that falsehoods could be eliminated and