&quot;Astrology, for instance, is falsifiable — indeed, it has been falsified ad nauseam — and yet it isn’t science.&quot; -Pigliucci<p>Mind blown! Wat? If it&#x27;s falsified then it&#x27;s just wrong, i.e. it had the potential to be science before it was proven to be wrong and now it isn&#x27;t. He seems to be confused about the chronology of theories. If I make up a theory based on complete bs and it just happens to be falsifiable and then falsified then I wasn&#x27;t doing science. I don&#x27;t know of any falsifiable theory that was just pulled out of a hat, was recognized as one but wasn&#x27;t immediately falsified (if there is one then he has a point.) If I come up with a theory and work hard to make sure it&#x27;s falsifiable then I was doing science even if the theory was later falsified.