Falsifiability for a theory is great, but a theory can still be respectable even if it is not falsifiable, as long as it is verifiable.
Sentiment: POSITIVE
A good scientific theory is one which is falsifiable, which has not been falsified.
A valid scientific theory is predictive, verifiable, and replicable. To me, that's beautiful.
The funny thing is, I sometimes get the impression that some people outside of the field think that there's some element of security that we have in working on a theory that hasn't made any predictions that can be proven false. In a sense, we're working on something unfalsifiable.
Science is defined in various ways, but today it is generally restricted to something which is experimental, which is repeatable, which can be predicted, and which is falsifiable.
In so far as a scientific statement speaks about reality, it must be falsifiable; and in so far as it is not falsifiable, it does not speak about reality.
The standard theory may survive as a part of the ultimate theory, or it may turn out to be fundamentally wrong. In either case, it will have been an important way-station, and the next theory will have to be better.
A theory must be tempered with reality.
The falsification of scientific data or analysis is always a serious matter.
A theory has only the alternative of being right or wrong. A model has a third possibility: it may be right, but irrelevant.
There is no falsification before the emergence of a better theory.