Popper vs. Con

Hello,
Several times I have heard, both from Rabbi and from many places, the supposed debate between Popper and Kuhn about the nature of a scientific theory, but in practice I don’t understand why there is even a debate. It sounds as if they are talking about a different plane (philosophical versus psychological).
Popper defines what a scientific theory is even before we look at the laboratory: a theory must have falsifiability to be considered scientific. He defines a metaphysical-philosophical guideline: what defines the boundaries of science, what is the distinction between “real” science and a story or metaphysics that has no testable potential. In practice, I understand that we will not always act this way, but ideally this is how it should be done.
Kuhn, on the other hand, gives a more psychological-sociological description. He describes how scientists actually think and behave: within an existing paradigm they “complete puzzles” (puzzle-solving) and do not immediately look for refutation possibilities. He explains where the need to break into a new paradigm (“crisis”, “anomaly”) comes from – it is a matter of community and psychological dynamics, not of an abstract criterion. For him, the decision to abandon a theory is a gradual process, which depends on accepted methodologies within the paradigm.
What does the rabbi think?