I need to be pedantic here and point out that you're only falsifying hypotheses in good science. Granted, you're often falsifying the null case of the hypothesis you have in mind, and 'failing to reject the null' is a subtle difference from 'proving a hypothesis', but it's important.
As an apology for my pedantry, here's a neat word which is related to your article: tribology.
I like that the falsifying in this instance is in italics. But when carefully examined, the case here is simple, the researchers arrived at the conclusion which was presented as they strive to find a conclusion to that event. In actual sense, people are still working on the project. Should we take their conclusion to be correct? That's a subjective answer which I'd like to hear inputs from the readers.
With the mindset I presented, we should not take their viewpoint to be correct. We can, however, consider it to be less likely to be false than the competing hypothesis.
That, I can totally agree with :D
Posted using Partiko Android