It's worth noting that falsificationism really only applies to experimental sciences like physics and chemistry. The "historical sciences" like geology, paleont

It's worth noting that falsificationism really only applies to experimental sciences like physics and chemistry. The "historical sciences" like geology, paleontology, and archaeology don't work that way because of the arrow of time. I'd recommend Cleland's original [1] or most recent paper [2] on this topic. The upside is that we can differentiate between the quality of various competing hypotheses in a reasoned way. That's how we can say that the traditional academic narratives are epistemologically better than e.g. Tolkien's Silmarillion. [1] https://doi.org/10.1130/0091-7613(2001)029<0987:HSESAT>2.0.CO;2 https://doi.org/10.1130/0091-7613(2001)029<0987:HSESAT>2.0.C... [2] https://doi.org/10.1093/bjps/axq024 https://doi.org/10.1093/bjps/axq024