Isn't that natural? The cone of possibilities is large when we know nothing. As we become more knowledgeable, we eliminate hypotheses. So, for instance, while you might have believed all sorts of nonsense about the size of people's heads and whatnot a hundred years ago, you no longer can.
Hell, a thousand years ago, maybe you could have hypothesized the existence of dragons. No, the space of hypotheses is massive, and we keep cutting into it, making small enclaves of things that resist falsification.
This necessarily reduces diversity. I'd be a fool today to believe in miasma theory.
This isn't really science where something can be proved or disproved in vitro but about things like "political sciences" which have taken their specific paths for social reasons.
The simple backpropogation approach is most common and IMO accounts for much less diversity in ideas. The idea that every choice was right/wrong based on the side that won ignores that with a different geography some of the choices and the winner would have been entirely different. It also tends to remove options that may have been superior but were not chosen by either the winner or loser of a historical conflict.
Hell, a thousand years ago, maybe you could have hypothesized the existence of dragons. No, the space of hypotheses is massive, and we keep cutting into it, making small enclaves of things that resist falsification.
This necessarily reduces diversity. I'd be a fool today to believe in miasma theory.