Most scientists realize this, but many people seeking to invoke falsification don’t. While it’s a useful concept, falsification can be easily abused because all science is inherently false or incomplete. Similarly, complex topics with many lines of evidence that all lead to the same conclusion like evolution cannot be falsified by any single test because even if something major failed the other lines would be more then enough to allow us to reach the same conclusion.

What falsification is meant to protect against is hypothesis that can only ever give “it’s true” for an answer. For example in another recent thread rtomes came up with thy hypothesis that the last 150 year of climate data can be explained by 4 overlapping climate cycles, but he gave no independent evidence for choosing those cycles and simply searched until he found 4 that gave him the match he wanted.

The problem here is that you can always find 4 overlapping sine waves that will match almost any climate pattern. There was never a chance that he would not be able to produce something that worked so the fact he did meant nothing. If it is never possible for a hypothesis to fail, then it’s success means nothing, that’s what falsification is about.