Does falsification provide the most accurate model of understanding for the progress of scientific knowledge? – No

It may seem a paradox, but despite the word falsification, it is through this, those who have a better knowledge of what the science is within this classification of the matter at hand is, will always verse their opinion. So, where there is falsification, as in all things at one time or another, the matter of what is found to be false, is corrected. We all learn once again, even if through mistakes, something classified and believed to be right, turns out to be false (or wrong.) This after all, whether science, or medicine, schooling or the latest ideas given to us of the ice dripping at the North Pole, all that is false, will at some stage or other, be corrected. Nothing ever is, without a price first paid by the gullible, who swallow hook line and sinker for what they hear, or are taught. While others hear and are taught, have a mind open enough to investigate further, only to find there is more to the bigger picture. Errors, or falsifications have always been, and in science, those concerned, have learned from it.

It was believed that the space shuttle was the best way to reach Outer Space: and many have returned safely. But not without the tragedies which unfolded through human error, and their learning, “oh no, there has to be a better way to prevent this happening again.” Or even when on a universal scale, we all, who have the flying scroll of the magic TV screen, coming to us through the airwaves into our homes, and see, scientific falsification in many forms. It is blasted into our minds if they are receivers not of the questioning kind, sometimes with only consequences those in that home witness. Again, like a child, who believes in anything (unless taught otherwise,)and has such an openness, that they sometimes have nightmares about some falsification science offers. I hardly believe the most accurate model helps the progress of this type of child, in their own limitations of the real knowledge they still must learn. Even some adults have this lovely child-like quality, but if their nightmares progress to a fuller picture of their learning, the paradox again comes into play. They learn what is not false anymore.

Falsification can never provide the accurate model of understanding for the progress of any knowledge: but it can and will always open the door for further investigation into the subject, and from this comes the better understanding. As a result, progress in the direction of the right knowledge (up to that point.) Science is a very big world involving an ocean and sky and beyond, of subject matter. Even digging into the depths of the earth, and our human selves, as bodies. Full of matter and equations. As humans we can keep quoting all and everyone we can recall in history, to justify, or cement our point of view, but science has an ever growing value, so there will always be human error and falsifications. Yet for all that we have, we also have those great open minds to what is, who have literally been silenced, or died because there was no-one around at their time to even begin to understand their angle, or why they did the things they did. Even Leonardo da Vinci had to wait 500 years for scientific minds; to see the, no error or foolishness of his ways, or the falsifications they laid on his head, because of their own errors. Only to find, he really did have something worthwhile to offer the world within scientific knowledge, in which it is progressing all the time.

Falsification is temporary, despite a whole generation can be misled, but others fix where those who destroy. Error of knowledge too is temporary, even if sadly the only way humans learn is through them, via many untold sufferings. Leaning towards what this one or that one says and claims is the right knowledge, doesn’t make it right. Scientifically speaking, while medicine too is a very ongoing search, how many know the falsifications around the artist Vincent van Gogh? Declared to be mad because he cut off his ears. In truth, not mad, medically or scientifically speaking, but mad with the pain his ears caused him, by the tremendous pressure within these. In his suffering with the Meier’s Syndrome, by ridding himself of his ears, he believed it would cure his problem. So no, falsification does not provide the accurate model to understanding the progress of scientific knowledge. Right from the start, if it is false, it’s not correct. But it can be disregarded to the point of correction, where no-one suffers the falseness of it’s ramification. It’s an endless book to go into this subject.