In general the unknown has to be explained by the known and the past is therefore better explained by the present than the present by the past though the latter method was followed by the majority of writers in the beginning of sociology and is still followed by many. (para. 548)
From that it follows that before a theory can be considered true , it is virtually indispensable that there be perfect freedom to impugn it. Any limitation, even indirect and however remote ,imposed on anyone choosing to contradict it is enough to cast suspicion upon it. (para. 568)
(from The Mind and Society)
Does that latter paragraph stand out because of our present enthusiasm for falsifiability?