A small correction: there is no leader. The students themselves decide everything on plenary sessions and every decision is executed by working groups that are formed afterwards. You always have different people executing the decisions to avoid any one person being seen as a "leader". And we are slowly shifting to citizens themselves forming local groups in their neighbourhoods with the same organisation.
But yes, the students asked that only Serbian flags be shown, because these are protests that have support from a wide range of people, from anarchist vegans to ultra nationalists, so they want to prevent any division. That doesn't stop some right wing dipshits to bring Russian flags, even though Russia explicitly condemned the prorests as a "coloured revolution", but what can you do.
While some EU representatives from the parliament have been supportive, the EU has a negative image because officials still act like everything's in order. Ursula is set to meet with our psychopathic dictator, and Marta Kos wrote how she had a constructive talk concerning Serbia's steps towards EU integration with the guy who tried to cause a bloodbath during the 15 mins of silence a few days ago. A guy who also officially (as a president under the Serbian constitution) has about as much say as I do concerning these things.
That's not really the take of the modern philosophy of science. All modern schools of thought when it comes to science have the acceptance of falsehoods embedded into their nodels. I'll give a few examples:
Karl Popper famously stated that science cannot prove that anything is true, only that something is false. Thus, any scientific theory that's still accepted is regarded as not yet being proven wrong. Science is just a cycle of giving theories, proving them wrong, giving new ones to account for the problem of the old one and so on, ever getting closer to the truth, but never arriving.
Thomas Kuhn wrote about scientific paradigms, which are models of the field in question that every scientist uses (for example Aristotelian motion, which was surpassed by Newtonian mechanics, which were surpassed by Einstein's relativity). During the period of "normal science", scientists are using their established methods until they end up with too many problems they cannot resolve, at which point it is accepted that the paradigm cannot hold up, and a scientific revolution needs to bring forth a new paradigm, that is incomparable with the old one. Some knowledge is lost in this process, but we move on until the next crisis.
Paul Feyerabend wrote about countet-induction, which prevents science becoming a dogma. An example he gives is Copernicus going completely against the science of his time with his heliocentric system. The Ptolemaic system was as cutting edge science back then as quantum mechanics is today.
All in all, findings being continuously disproven and replaced by new ones is not bad science, it is science. Achieving actual, "true", positive knowledge of the world, documenting it and saying "that's it, we solved this problem, we're done" is not something modern science event attempts at.