But in tracing the history of wrongness, wrestling with all the fashions of thinking, you learn to think with precision. That skill continues to help me.
Same guy in the same book described light as being made up of tiny indivisible parts moving very quickly - a reminder that proving the particle behavior of light was what Einstein won his Nobel for.
Or how about when they thought about the implications of indivisible parts of matter obeying physical laws as invalidating free will and thus concluded there must be a variable component to the behavior of such quantized parts of matter (which they termed The Swerve) - literally thousands of years before the experimental evidence for a probabilistic behavior to quanta and the relationship to the topic of superdeterminism.
I suspect part of the problem is that by continuing to prioritize the teaching of the philosophers that directly influenced later philosophers we extend the survivorship bias caused by the church in locking up Leucretius's naturalism 'heresy' and promoting Plato and Aristotle's intelligent design.
So most people at best learn that the Epicureans were talking about atoms and didn't believe in an afterlife and had some loose sense of hedonism, but never bother reading the off brand philosophy for themselves to realize "holy crap, these guys were objectively the most correct in antiquity on a number of major topics in astonishing detail and were broadly ignored in an age where impiety may no longer have been a death sentence like for Socrates but was certainly not winning popularity contests."
Also "learning the truth" in philosophy is more learning what "the truth" means and how it is applied. Personally I'm a fan of William James' pragmatism approach here but it is not commonly held.
So...Falsifiability?
You've basically just said "I can make any thing to be true so long as it's justified to me". Think about the consequences of that statement.
> lastly, it happens to be true
Have you studied any set theory? How about epistemology, or non-binary logic?
> But in tracing the history of wrongness, wrestling with all the fashions of thinking, you learn to think with precision. That skill continues to help me.
Precision: the state or quality of being precise; exactness.
Something seems off here.
I'm not sure the creds help you here, as undergrad philosophy graduates do not have a reputation for mature insight or depth, perhaps especially those reared in the contemporary climate where curricula are poorly structured, resembling something of a chaotic, superficial buffet that can only produce an incoherent residue of skepticism and relativism. Note that the very claim that almost all philosophers were wrong about everything is itself a truth claim, and therefore subject to the very same criteria that the claims of philosophers are. You haven't escaped the philosophical predicament.
But besides, it's easy to demonstrate that large numbers of professional philosophers are wrong by looking at the PhilPapers surveys. Mutually incompatible beliefs are held in high numbers, across the board, by many professional philosophers. Both as a group and, to a lesser extent, individuals. They can't all be right, obviously. Is a philosophy BA in a better position to make this observation than the layman? I'd say so.