> This means that a theory is never falsifiable simpliciter, but only relative to a set of background assumptions. Therefore, if we say that a theory is only s

> This means that a theory is never falsifiable simpliciter, but only relative to a set of background assumptions. Therefore, if we say that a theory is only scientific if it’s falsifiable, then it follows that no theory, not even a theory as successful as Newton’s law of universal gravitation, is scientific. Of course, this is absurd, so falsificationism is false. You can consider the union of the theory and background assumptions to be a single theory. The premises do not imply that no theory is scientific. An analogy to mathematics is pretty apt. The Riemann hypothesis (RH) is falsifiable in the crude sense described, but cannot be proven or disproven without an axiomatic basis. If you were able to derive a contradiction from RH and some other accepted theorems, you would think that falsifies RH. However, if you wanted a more concrete picture of what was proved, you might reduce the other theorems to Zermelo–Fraenkel set theory (ZF) so you have the result that RH + ZF is inconsistent/false. Maybe in some other axiomatization RH is true, but the general community accepts ZF so that means RH + ZF is false effectively means RH is false. I do agree with some of the sentiment of the article. There should be thought about how to actually test what we say we are testing (not having a reliance on background assumptions) and to accept negative results rather than just find something to blame.