[scottbot]

This ain't actually how science works, it's just an idealized account. Special relativity wasn't technically falsifiable compared to its competing theory by Lorentz, because both produced mathematically equivalent predictions. If you pick up a random science paper these days, odds are you'll find all sorts of unfalsifiable claims. Does this mean modern scientists are doing it wrong? No, but even if you think it does, it still shows modern historians are on the same footing.

[InclinedPlane]

You can call activities which work outside of the framework of science whatever you want, but they aren't science. The foundation of science is testing theories against evidence, which means falsifiability.

Relativity is a perfect example because it made very specific and testable predictions such as gravitational lensing, frame dragging, gravitational redshift, and gravitational radiation.

[scottbot]

If you define science as anything that's falsifiable, then of course anything that isn't, isn't science. And hey, free sciencecountry, that's your prerogative.

That said, the philosophers of science who originally discussed falsifiability have gone on to say its inadequate, and a huge chunk of work that's published and funded as science these days isn't strictly falsifiable.

Science is a word like any other, that we all agree on to make meaning. Right now lots of practicing scientists work on a definition that includes but isn't limited to falsifiability, but of course the great thing about it is you're welcome to decide what criteria is most comfortable to you. I like to think that the work Einstein did on Special Relativity before 1915, that wasn't mathematically distinct from Lorentz or Poincare, was scientific even though it wasn't falsifiable.