 
 <prompt> How you go sabi if something fit be proven false wey e no necessarily false? Given di last question, write one context wey contain di answer. E fit be 1 - 20 sentences. Context: <response>: ```Based on wetin dey make sense, no amount of positive results for experimental testing fit confirm scientific theory, but if one counterexample show face, e go clear say the theory dey wrong. To talk say one statement (e.g., the statement of a law of some scientific theory) -- [call am "T"] -- fit be "falsifiable" no mean say "T" dey wrong. Instead, e mean say, if "T" dey wrong, then (in principle), "T" fit show say e dey wrong, through observation or experiment. Popper's explanation of the logical difference between verification and falsifiability dey important for im philosophy of science. E still ginger am to use falsifiability as im standard to separate wetin be, and wetin no be, true science: one theory suppose dey see as science if, and only if, e fit be falsified. This make am attack the claims of both psychoanalysis and contemporary Marxism say dem no fit claim say dem be scientific, based on say their theories no fit be falsified.``` 