have a look at this . 24 rays built on a ratio 47 , a little less black and white , more light blue to equal the dark blue . <| sep |> Or I don ' t buy things I don ' t need full stop ? <| sep |> I know the scientific method is not set in stone , and I know that most scientific beliefs could technically be wrong . Actually , falsifiability is one of the more important characteristics of a scientific hypothesis or theory . Falsifiability may or may not be something that distinguishes certain methods as scientific from those that are not , but it is worth noting that bringing up something so Popperian as falsification does show that many , many advances and breakthroughs exist beyond science . Science is a small set of our endeavor to discover the characteristics and attributes of our universe , and bringing up falsifiability is a testament to that . Falsifiability was a discovery not found through science at all . Popper was a philosopher of science , which is the same field I ' m studying . It focuses on what science is , precisely what we ' re discussing right now . The reason falsificationism is suspect , even to the point of Popper himself gaining some distance from his initial view that science should be based on it , is due to something called the QuineDuhem Thesis . If you are trying to disprove a hypothesis , like say relativity , by finding very fast particles and you find it , this either disproves your hypothesis that your instruments are measuring things correctly or your hypothesis that Einstein was right about relativity . Any time you test anything , you could potentially be disproving a large number of these auxiliary hypotheses and it ' s hard to tell which . Falsificationism perhaps then is either not the right qualifier for science or is not the sole qualifier , there is interesting discussion to be had with regards to Popper ' s ideas and experts are still researching this today . resistant to hardfought scientific knowledge , which they see as liberal whilst using cars , iPhones , and GPS every day , of course . This isn ' t a contradiction in reasoning . For the reasons laid out in the last argument , you can reap technological benefits based on scientific findings while still denying that scientific findings are true . You only must concede that the findings are practical . I mean yes , thinking science is liberal is silly nonsense , but not resisting science while simultaneously using technology .