I recommend https://aeon.co/essays/a-fetish-for-falsification-and-observ... for further reading on how falsification has interacted with science historically and philosophically. In principle, it's absolutely crucial for good science. In practice, hypotheses that are not directly falsifiable (they require additional technological development) have contributed greatly to science in the long run. This is interesting since it's simultaneously reasonable and correct for contemporaries to label these hypotheses as non-scientific work since at the time they had little to no evidence supporting or denying the hypothesis and no way to test them. In practice, the distinction between "falsifiable" and "unfalsifiable" is a messy spectrum.