No, we should redouble our efforts!
Over past few years some scientists, particularly string theorists, have suggested that we should give up on the idea of falsifiability as a criterion for deciding whether or not to accept or reject a specific scientific theory. (A good theory is one that one can perform a specific experiment, whose outcome may lead to the rejection of the theory).
For example, in 2014 in answer to the question, "What scientific idea is due for retirement?" Sean Carroll's answer was Falsifiability. He uses this to justify string theory and the multiverse.
First, I think several important points need to be conceded and acknowledged.
1. There are subtle philosophical issues associated with falsifiability. Popper did not have the last word!
2. In practise, rarely will a theory get rejected just because there is experimental data that is inconsistent with it. Sometimes the data will get rejected. Other times the theory will get modified.
3. In practise, rarely do many scientists actually focus on falsifiability. For example, theorists generally don't write papers or give talks suggesting specific experiments that could be used to falsify their favourite theory or latest calculation.
I would argue that 3. happens partly because it is actually extremely difficult to come up with specific do-able experiments that will give definitive results that can clearly falsify a theory, particularly in condensed matter or theoretical chemistry. As I have said before, good science is hard work.
But, the solution is not to give up on falsifiability. To me this is throwing the baby out with the bath water. It is a bit like discussions of foreign aid for poverty alleviation. Currently, some programs waste money and others actually cause more harm than good. But, the solution is not to give up but focus on supporting programs that actually do make a positive difference.
I think Einstein's General Relativity does provide a nice example of falsifiability, contrary to what Sean Carroll claims. This is because besides Einstein's theory there are many alternative theories: Newton, Brans-Dicke, Cartan, ...
We are celebrating the centenary of GR and not some alternative theory because they have largely been ruled out by experiment ....
I think that science would be better off if we all worked a little harder and thought a little more critically about how integrate falsifiability more into science.
What do you think?