The concept of falsification is much overrated. Scientists conveniently ignore this when it suits them.
Source: "Simply Psychology" article by Dr Saul McLeod (an extract)
https://www.simplypsychology.org/Karl-Popper.html
"Popper's astute formulations of logical procedure helped to reign in the excessive use of inductive speculation upon inductive speculation, and also helped to strengthen the conceptual foundation for today's peer review procedures.
However, the history of science gives little indication of having followed anything like a methodological falsificationist approach. Indeed, and as many studies have shown, scientists of the past (and still today) tended to be reluctant to give up theories that we would have to call falsified in the methodological sense; and very often it turned out that they were correct to do so (seen from our later perspective).
The history of science shows that sometimes it is best to ’stick to one’s guns’. For example, "In the early years of its life, Newton’s gravitational theory was falsified by observations of the moon’s orbit"
Also, one observation does not falsify a theory. The experiment may have been badly designed, data could be incorrect.
Quine states that a theory is not a single statement; it is a complex network (a collection of statements). You might falsify one statement (e.g. all swans are white) in the network, but this should not mean you should reject the whole complex theory.
Critics of Karl Popper, chiefly
Thomas Kuhn, Paul Feyerabend, and Imre Lakatos, rejected the idea that there exists a single method that applies to all science and could account for its progress."
