That's a contemporary definition of science deeply rooted in a specific philosopher of science (Popper). There was nothing falsifiable about Newton or Darwin.

That's a contemporary definition of science deeply rooted in a specific philosopher of science (Popper). There was nothing falsifiable about Newton or Darwin. They were predictive (Darwin to a lesser extent) and, more importantly, they fit, like a puzzle. Falsifiability is a good rule of thumb, like Occam's razor, to tell apart obviously pathological research (this possibly includes particle and high-energy physics); but the point of science is the unity of science. If you're a believer in science, you have to believe there's true knowledge to be had (however unobtainable); this true knowledge has to be a single thing, a single puzzle to piece together. However inefficiently and plagued by politics, economics is doing a bit of that. Not long ago we were thinking that it should be replaced in favor of psychology, which is closer to the matter of human behavior. But just look at how psychology is doing.