I feel like the author of this article is simplifying "falsifiability". Yes, it's not easy to identify, but getting unexpected results from an experiment, I do

I feel like the author of this article is simplifying "falsifiability". Yes, it's not easy to identify, but getting unexpected results from an experiment, I don't think, has ever been the line. You have to understand those results as well, before you can interpret them, and while "understanding" is surely fuzzy, it's completely missing in his commentary, as if Popper suggested at any point that the moment something unexpected happens, the whole house of cards comes tumbling down. "Wobbly philosophy would become part of legal doctrine." It's only wobbly if you leave out large parts of it, as the author has... The title of the article suggested nuance, but I don't see much of it in the article itself. It seems as if the author attempted to take down a basic tenant of science, and feeling satisfied that he had, moved on to draw further conclusions that result. I don't think he succeeded in that set up, however, which makes the second half of the book review (the part about the actual book) less interesting or compelling.