[MENTION=3325]Mole[/MENTION]
Its really hard to keep track of the myriad mistakes and presumptions I see you projecting onto all the issues that surround this topic, I would have navigated them from the outset, in quite a different fashion.
Using "falsifiable hypothesis" does not forge unity in any field that has not already been relegated as junk approximation (utilized only for the purposes of technical application, and when relied on in any serious and semi-philosophical thinking, produce stupid and useless claims and sentiments;- ie. many people harp on about the eventual end of the universe as predicted by entropy, when the theory of thermodynamics does not even apply to any of the weak nuclear forces empirically accounted of in nature).
Science is closer to the religiosity you profane, the religion of falsification being confused for verification;- which right at the start, presumes an epistemological pluralism that is already automatically acquiesced to (there are deeper philosophical implications in the stupidity of taking this step from the outset: blundering presumption about the force that time itself possesses, and the implicit distinction between an ordering force beyond the present-time, that we can only know and perceive as its controlling effect for our present[-time] observations; [and then I am baffled to understand, how any thinking person can make the mistake of thinking, that science can tell us anything on the questions of free will, and conscious-direction (ie decision making), when it already possesses a structure that could only hold authority over these matters, after one had already decided that science itself, was the overmind with the greatest human intelligence, claiming a power to define its subordinates according to its image... really.. quite a feeble bandwagon-cult (of nonthinking), that Scientism fanatics have given themselves over too.]
The task of any serious explorer would be to account for a system -especially of a "science" that is as immaterial as the mind- with an account that is not prone to a falsification, and thereby preventing the otherwise necessitated fracture of the field into competing claims, or a sham of loosely connected theorems that all collate against the background of a nebulous terra-incognito, the blank space upon which all the various tensions of consistency are conveniently projected to rest on (in hard physics, this is known as the big bang).
Plato solved these issues, which have their nexus in the misapplication for the principle of transitivity (that are obtusely ironed over in vulgar-scientific/secular thinking of today), by creation of the "ideal form"; and now Scientific reverence, has displaced the "ideal form" for an impossible pursuit of a scientific-Holy Grail that has yet to be presented to us, but we all fear the wroth of Science when not blindly agreeing that Science is capable of testing for the ultimate narrative for a cause, and thereby "knowing it (sic)" by falsification, to not confess these sentiments is the greatest heresy (I can imagine Richard Dawkins getting hot with anger even now, over any professed doubts). I would remind Scientists, that not only in principle does falsification never lead to verification (unless you have blind faith in those tasked to fudge the translated explanations into comprehensible language), but also that the rigor itself has yet to produce any hard truth in any matter;- it is quite obviously a massive and collective con-game, where we have already displaced so much old science already by "newer and better" science, that the more "newer and better science" that we get to look-forward to receiving, must be even better-er!...
^Bandwagon.
Furthermore, my critique in the third paragraph, is also the reason why Science has come to a grinding halt in dealing with quantum mechanics (for over four generations, the field has probably lost more understanding than was crafted on those topics in Heisenberg's day), which answers why mathematical modeling is epic-ly reaching the status of idol worship, so as to cover over the obvious and embarrassing problems of fudging some comprehensible account, that what would otherwise be required to hide the deep implications in the futility of Science, at the deepest level of empirical observation.