Original sentence: He claimed that, the negative heuristics of all scientific research programs generally forbid attacking the hardcore in the face of anomalies.He thought that we can resolve this inconstancy without abandoning our research program by leaving the hardcore alone and altering the auxiliary hypotheses.He tryed to solve this problem by pointing out that what is falsified by anomalies is a central theory plus a whole load of auxiliary hypothesis.However if the attempts at problem shifts do not achieve this, if they are just 'ad-hoc' changes that do not lead to the prediction of new facts, the he labels them as degenerating.If understand the concept of a 'theory' in the philospical tecnical sense, then strictly speaking when auxiliary hypothesis are changed  a new theory is created.Popper's saw his theory as impling that scientists should give up their theory as soon as they encounter any falsifying evidence, immediately replacing it with increasingly 'bold and powerful' new hypotheses.This appears to be at odds with the history of science as described by Kuhn, in which (in periods of normal science) scientists defend their doctrines, even when the evidence against them appears to be overwhelming.This is because to change the content of a theory is to produce a new theory
Edited sentence: He solved this problem by pointing out that what is falsified by anomalies is a central theory plus a whole load of auxiliary hypothesis.However if the attempts at problem shifts do not achieve this, if they are just 'ad-hoc changes that do not lead to the prediction of new facts, the he labels them as degenerating.Popper's prescription implies that scientists should give up their theory as soon as they encounter any falsifying evidence, immediately replacing it with increasingly bold and powerful new hypotheses.Strictly speaking, when auxiliary hypothesis are changed  a new theory is created as to change the content of a theory is strictly speaking to produce a new theory.The negative heuristics of all scientific research programs generally forbid attacking the hardcore in the face of anomalies.This is prima facie at odds with the history of science as described by Kuhn, in which (in periods of normal science) scientists defend their doctrines, even when the evidence against them appears to be overwhelming.We can resolve this inconstancy without abandoning our research program by leaving the hardcore alone and altering the auxiliary hypotheses