There are strong arguments against falsificationism

I know there are philosophers of science who think that falsificationism can be salvaged and that a more sophisticated version of that view is correct, so they will predictably not be moved by this post, but I’m fine with that since it’s the crude version that most people, especially scientists, have in mind when they talk about falsificationism. Popper’s philosophy of science is a product of his view on the problem of induction, so let’s talk briefly about that. So the way science works, according to Popper, is by conjuring up hypotheses such as the law of universal gravitation that can explain a whole array of phenomena and subjecting them to tests, whose aim is not to confirm them but to falsify them.

Source: necpluribusimpar.net