I completely agree that looking at old epistemology isn't that useful; simply because more recent theorists will need to address the same issues, so generally r

I completely agree that looking at old epistemology isn't that useful; simply because more recent theorists will need to address the same issues, so generally refer to older theory within their work. If you want a deep understanding then you need to look at the source material, but as you mention this is mostly only interesting for gaining a historical perspective. Unfortunately many of the people who create introductory science courses seem to mostly only be aware of Popper, so most students are aware of the importance of falsifiability but not of its problems. I suspect this is because reading Kuhn, Lakatos and Feyerabend leaves one with an impression that science isn't an objective endeavour and this is an uncomfortable truth when start from a belief that science is some infallible rationalist project. Personally it transformed my view from "trust the science"(TM) to "question the science, always." Science isn't always science unfortunately.