From what's in this thread, it seems that Popper's "naive falsificationism" is neither an accurate description of what happens in science nor a useful guide to how to actually do science.

The last few posts, by Ken G and Ari Jokimaki, have started to look at just what is the engine of science ... the role of theory for example, of unfocussed observation, purpose, and (goals). And for these areas, falsification(ism) is a minor player, at best.

This thread's pretty much done then?