falsifying the idea of falsification

[Belacqua]

as i pointed out the word was coined by karl popper to support his philosophy of science which all scientific discovery and study are conducted under. HE IS THE ONE WHO SAYS FALSIFICATION TO PROVE SUBJECTS NOT SCIENCE/Covered under the philosophy of science.

Philosophy of science. Not science. Philosophy.

It's true that philosophy of science is not science. 

Science works extremely well because it deals only with certain types of questions, which can be addressed in certain ways. Things we test scientifically must be investigated with empirical evidence in repeatable experiments with quantifiable results. But that doesn't mean that it's a waste of time to deal with philosophical questions also.

For example, if you want to say that science is a better way to spend your time than philosophy, that's a philosophical statement. It can't be demonstrated with a repeatable empirical quantifiable test, so it's not science. It addresses values about how best to spend our time, what kinds of results are good to get, and ultimately how it is best to live one's life. Those are all philosophical issues. So whether you like it or not, when you say that science is better than philosophy, you're doing philosophy. 

But the philosophy of science, in particular, has helped people to think about why science is good. And helped to draw the line between real science and pseudo-science. If you feel that's an important line, then what Popper wrote is good to have.

As a useful example, there's the case of Sigmund Freud. When he started he was trained as an MD and wanted to do scientific psychology. It didn't work out that way. And thanks to Popper it's easy for us to see why Freud's conclusions aren't science. It's because they aren't falsifiable. No matter what objection a person makes to Freud's theories, the true believer can always answer that the objection doesn't strike at the heart of things. They can say that people object out of a desire to avoid uncomfortable truths, and so any objection, while seeming to render Freud unbelievable, is actually vindication -- because the person objecting is seeking to protect himself. In short, there is no question which, when answered, shows Freud's theory to be wrong. This is what falsifiability means, so Freud's work isn't science. 

Having clear boundaries like this between science and pseudo-science protects and clarifies the important work that real science does.