falsifying the idea of falsification

[Belacqua]

Indeed by saying it cant be falsified he has basically admitted its not true.

I don't think it quite works that way.

There are non-falsifiable statements about which we may be unsure, or even have reasons to believe the truth of.

Here is a useful summary from a Virginia Commonwealth University astronomy class:

Falsifiability

Statements that belong in science must be about reproducible observations. However, as Karl Popper pointed out, there is a much stricter requirement.

A scientific statement is one that could possibly be proven wrong.

Such a statement is said to be falsifiable. Notice that a falsifiable statement is not automatically wrong. However a falsifiable statement always remains tentative and open to the possibility that it is wrong. When a falsifiable statement turns out to be a mistake, we have a way to detect that mistake and correct it.

Examples of Non-falsifiable Statements

An alien spaceship crashed in Roswell New Mexico.
A giant white gorilla lives in the Himalayan mountains.
Loch Ness contains a giant reptile.

In each case, if the statement happens to be wrong, all you will ever find is an absence of evidence --- No spaceship parts. No gorilla tracks in the Himalayas. Nothing but small fish in the Loch.

That would not convince true believers in those statements. They would say --- "The government hid all of the spaceship parts." "The gorillas avoided you and the snow covered their tracks." "Nessie was hiding in the mud at the bottom of the Loch."

None of these statements is falsifiable, so none of them belong in science.

Examples of Falsifiable Statements

No alien spaceships have ever landed in Roswell New Mexico.
Find just one spaceship and the statement is disproven. An exhaustive elimination of possibilities is not needed. Just one spaceship will do it.

This critter (just pulled from Loch Ness) is a fish.
Just one observation --- "Uh, it has fur all over it." --- is enough to disprove this statement, so it is falsifiable.

How to Tell if Something is Falsifiable

In most cases a falsifiable statement just needs one observation to disprove it. A Statement that is not falsifiable usually needs some sort of exhaustive search of all possibilities to disprove it.

I happen not to believe that aliens crashed at Roswell. The fact that it isn't falsifiable, though, doesn't mean people will certainly lack all reason to believe it. There may be mountains of circumstantial evidence -- enough to persuade even a reasonable person. And even if you think that in the Roswell case there isn't enough evidence, there may be in other cases. 

Metaphysical statements operate this way, too. The existence of eternal transcendent intelligibles may be unfalsifiable, but millennia of logical argument have persuaded some people. It's not a question for science, but that doesn't mean it's not something you can have a reasonable debate about, and something you may form [tentative] beliefs about.