I largely agree with your view that a hypothesis is a working basis until it has been falsified. Today's scientific community seems to be more concerned with verification and getting as many so-called "peer reviews" as possible that confirm but do not disprove. From my point of view, it's about marketable results. And I second your criticism elsewhere.

I am not conclusive myself whether there is a correct thesis underlying what is in the text I linked, however I would say that observation is something that precedes an assumption about what is observed, hence I said it is the initial element of science. Where nothing is observed, nothing can be assumed that forms the basis of a thesis. Since one can basically falsify any observation that does not concern something as unambiguous as gravity, for example, research based on observations that can be ambiguous or that apply to some/many and not all observed subjects would already be considered unscientific.

But what about the human mind, who wills to establish repeatability? With regard to genetic engineering, I had pointed out in another commentary that humans are quite tricky and that something that cannot be reproduced on the real visible subject can be repeated without problems on the abstraction of the subject. The abstraction of a subject ist not the subject, it's something different.

Since you agree on the one hand that objectivity in the sense von Förster questions it cannot be absolute, you say on the other hand that there is a "good enough". I would not disagree with this, but then I would add that this good enough takes place on the basis of human convention within linguistic communication because one WILL agree at some point. Until disagreement (falsification) sets in.

I would not claim to know what exactly passes as a scientifically clean method of individual works. Since I have too little expertise regarding the individual disciplines.

However, I would add that everything earthly is subject to the earth's electromagnetic field and that those creatures in which such a field can be measured interact with each other and with the earth's field and influence those creatures that do not have their own measurable field for that reason alone (without my being able to prove this assumption). I imagine a room full of people in balloons who are moving, bumping into each other, bouncing back, etc., i.e. who are constantly in motion, influence creatures and objects in the room that do not have a balloon shell.

Apart from that, I would say that false theses are well worth reading and can lead to the establishment of new theses, I think I understood you to mean something like that.