The falsificationist view put forth by well-known philosopher Carl Popper is, in fact, a distinction between the philosophy of modern science and the old. Popper is one of the professors of the University of London who has played a pivotal role in the development of the philosophy of science in general, and in the philosophy of social sciences and economics in particular. First, we refer to the general ideas of falsification, then to distinguish it from the traditional view of the philosophy of science as well as the positivist viewpoint, and at the end, we will mention significant points about this thinking.Popper makes a distinction in the form of falsification between scientific and non-scientific points of view. It considers scientific matters as a set of hybrid cases around the real world, which can be abandoned (at least in principle and potentially) through empirical observations. Scientificness is related to the test of propositions, and not to the certainty and assurance of knowledge. (28) Therefore, his criterion of distinction includes a relatively continuous spectrum of knowledge, ranging from precision sciences such as physics to poetry, literary criticism and non-scientific affairs (the other end of the spectrum). Before Popper and in the form of nineteenth-century responses, the scientific distinction was non-scientific in relation to the issue of induction. That is, scientific was separated from non-scientific due to the use of inductive method. Scientific issues were essentially derived from the initial experience, then general laws were extracted through observation and empirical testing and with the help of deployment to them, that is, a special relationship was found between induction and analogy.But in the context of Popper (which is roots in Hume’s argument), there is no connection between induction and analogy. Namely, we can not infer any general proposition logically from individual propositions, although the number of solitary statements is very large. Popper, in the form of an example (referred to as the root of the example given to Stuart Mill), states: “Observation of any strong white number can not confirm the inference that all the swans are white, but observing only one strong black to undo the conclusion. Above, enough. In terms of falsification, theories or hypotheses are regarded as initial and temporary assumptions that economists and other scientists have made in their minds to explain some things. This theory then goes along with the annulment (and not the proof). The theory is subject to rigorous tests. Whether these tests, or the theory, resist or be falsified. If it is canceled, it is completely abandoned and replaced by a new interim theory, which is repeated in the same way as before. (29) If it resists, it is valid until it has been canceled.The idea of falsification is also debatable. And that is in the form of a question Popper himself poses. In principle, for Popper and falsehoods, the program has the ability to know science that can answer a question. The question is, what are the realities that will lead us to reject or reject that program? (30) Popper says, in principle, that there is a false question of knowledge, and what is asked is that what kind of method does it make us know? But the more correct question is how can we know the wrong method, that is, if the study method is inappropriate, how can we control it and critique it and replace it. The falsifiers believe that this approach brings the researcher in a trial and error process (or, in other words, a permanent revolution) to the truth. At the same time, superior theories remain in the field of science. But again, we emphasize that this does not show the correctness of the aforementioned theories. That is, the current theory of the previous theory only shows a more appropriate approximation of reality, since other tests may be launched in the future that would invalidate it. In any case, this process is the driving force behind the advancement of science. Among the two theories, it has a relatively “better” effect, which results in more accurate results or less inaccurate results. Here it is said that the theory has a degree of reinforcement. At the same time, this is an indication of physical appearance, and it is by no means the true meaning of reality. But the theory, which tolerates harder tests and has not been falsified, has, to Popper and falsified, more explicit capacity.