>Now, “falsification” itself is a silly/naive cartoon-ish framework for how to do science. It has its uses, but we mustn’t cling to it too much (which would be cargo culting). We certainly have many other useful approaches as well.

i don't understand your point. you're saying something like "even though GR supersedes Newton it doesn't falsify Newton, and Newton is still useful". yes incorrect theories can still be useful but that doesn't make them correct. As soon as i use Newton for very fast things (or very small things) and i get poor results that is falsification of the claim that Newton is a GUT. maybe that isn't an interesting claim (though certainly there are a lot of theorists that are interested in that claim) but that's subjective not formal.