we can also interpret this differently, and say that, NO knowledge was NOT "less accurate" in the past, it just was not as detailed and informed and advanced as it is today. So it is not so much that it was less accurate in the past, because without the knowledge in the past (egs of trials and errors, failures and successes), we would not be able to learn from other's mistakes and build upon them, to create the new "more accurate" knowledge that we are presented with today. so the knowledge in the past was not less accurate, for we have used it to develop the knowledge we have today.
in our counterclaim,to state that knowledge has not become more accurate over time, is it right to say that it has remained stagnant, or remained as it was in the past, which is "less accurate" or "inaccurate"? DOES THE COUNTERCLAIM "NO IT HAS NOT BECOME MORE ACCURATE OVER TIME" SUGGEST THAT IT REMAINS INACCURATE? > DOES REMAINING STAGNANT, OR HAVING NO NEW DEVELOPMENT MEAN THAT THE KNOWLEDGE IS STILL INACCURATE?
errors make the claim more accurate---- surfacing of new evidence - causes it to become more accurate. the greater availability of resources has affected the accuracy and dents it and questions the accuracy of it. something becomes more "less accurate" when its theories don't apply or fit anymore, and when new evidence surfaces to question the reliability and accuracy of this claim/ particular piece of knowledge. As such, knowledge becomes more accurate, when it can be used to explain theories and certain phenomenas, without any questions or doubts.