The question is, “Does falsification provide the MOST ACCURATE model …..”.
Falsification is only one tool for progress. To compare it to the other tools is to compare apples to oranges.
As an individual who has developed theories (in theoretical physics)I have derived my own litmus tests. I sum them up in the following paragraph.
A theory cannot be rejected if it meets the following requirements. It must not violate any well accepted law of physics, it must not lead to any reductio ad absurdum, it must be self consistent and consistent with empiricism, it must quantify its findings and it must have no flaw in logic. If it meets these requirements, there can be no valid reason for rejection.
Although not specifically mentioned falsification is in there somewhere. That is to say the elements of falsification are there. Just which elements would comprise a falsification depends on the nature of the specific falsification.
In developing a theory I routinely attempt to falsify (test) each development.
I cannot tell you how many dead ends that process has led me into.
There are other very effective ways to develop a theory. Here’s one:
THE BIG BANG
I personally believe in the Big Bang-Bang theory in which the universe eventually collapses forming a plasma state which then explodes creating an expanding universe that eventually collapses, etc., etc., ad infinitum.
This negates the dilemma existing with the present paradigm which asserts that there is only one big bang – which in turn requires that all the material of the universe was brought into existence OUT OF NOTHING. I do not subscribe to the notion that matter can be created out of nothing. To me that is a reductio ad absurdum.
A counter argument to my theory is that the universe is open and the expansion rate is such that it will never contract, i.e., fall back on itself.
I look at it this way. we have a beam balance. On one pan we place the open universe theory – on the other we place the Big Bang-Bang theory.
Those favoring the first pan have to acknowledge that they do not really know the universe is open. The WEIGHT of their argument hinges on that point.
Those favoring the second pan have working for them the question, “Can matter be created from nothing?”
I think it is patent that the WEIGHT of the latter argument far exceeds that of the former.
I would say that that a closed universe is much more likely than the creation of matter out of nothing. Therefore, we should subscribe to the Big Bang-Bang theory.
Put another way, on the one hand we have the question, Is the universe open or closed? On the other hand we have the question, Can matter be created from nothing?
Obviously, the latter is the most compelling. Since it cannot be, then we must opt for a closed universe and consequently the Big Bang-Bang theory.