I disagree with this claim in the article: "Not all falsifiable claims, then, are scientific, and not all scientific claims are falsifiable. How would one direc

I disagree with this claim in the article: "Not all falsifiable claims, then, are scientific, and not all scientific claims are falsifiable. How would one directly test the Big Bang Theory, which seeks to explain the origins of the universe?" I think all useful scientific claims must be falsifiable. And the Big Bang theory is falsifiable as it made predictions of the Cosmic Microwave background. But overall, for sure, boundaries what's scientific or non-scientific are a bit fuzzy. And Popper criterion is not the only criterion for definition whether something is scientific or not. But still I think they key point is making verifyiable predictions.