Where Falsehoods Begin

In an attempt to discredit and refute Karl Popper, a forum commenter wrote: "It is not falsifiability that makes a conjecture a scientific hypothesis it is being able to test it."

However, what did Karl Popper ("Conjectures and Refutations" - 1963) say about it?

"Every genuine test of a theory is an attempt to falsify it, or to refute it. Testability is falsifiability; but there are degrees of testability: some theories are more testable, more exposed to refutation, than others; they take, as it were, greater risks."

"The criterion of the scientific status of a theory is its falsifiability, or refutability, or testability." — Karl Popper, (Popper, CR, 36)

If "Testability is falsifiability" as Popper says, then the commenter's sentence illustrates his ignorance. By exchanging the word falsifiability with testability we get - It is not falsifiability testability that makes a conjecture a scientific hypothesis it is being able to test it.
So, in trying to show that Popper is wrong, the commenter has shown that Popper is correct. The commenter actually agrees with Popper but, he just doesn't realize it. Had the commenter written; "What makes a conjecture a scientific hypothesis is being able to test it", or, "Testability makes a conjecture a scientific hypothesis", then I'm sure Popper would have agreed with either version.

The commenter also wrote:
"Newtons laws of motion in the context of human scaled dimensions, masses, speeds, and precision cannot be falsified."
Of course, Newton's laws of motion are tested every time we see, and measure, anything in motion. If at anytime something does not move as described by Newton's laws of motion, only then, could we claim that Newton's laws are false, under certain conditions. As such, Newton's laws of motion have been, and continue to be, tested and thus are falsifiable.
As for the commenter's statement, "cannot be falsified", if he means that they must be true, then he is reducing science to the level of religion and dogmatism, because only religions are arrogant enough to deem themselves to be the holders of ultimate, definitive truth. Instead, if he means, the laws of motion have yet to be shown to be false or, are yet to be falsified, then he is correct; in which case, his error is the use of the definitive, "cannot".

Nature does not comply with the laws of physics, the laws of physics merely attempt to describe nature.

In science, we must be careful with the words and phrases used to convey a concept. Slight variations in one interpretation can lead to further exaggeration in another, and so on and so on, until the concept may eventually be completely misrepresented. As it was with, "It is not falsifiability that makes a conjecture a scientific hypothesis it is being able to test it."
The commenter went on to say the following:

"Popper? His brilliant idea is that you cannot know that anything is true. All you can do is show that something is likely false. Hence is[sic] prescription for knowing is lurching from something that is probably false to something else that is probably false until you know everything that is false.
However, by his conjecture (not theory), you cannot know that it is true that you know everything that is false. Somehow that is supposed to constitute knowledge. I do agree that knowing what NOT to do is helpful but if you don’t know what TO do, you are at dead zero and I do mean dead."

"Popper published his poppycock to sell books, talks, and seminars and not to give instructions as to how humans can learn to know anything at all useful. What we need to know about reality is what is life giving, supporting, and enhancing. His method only tells us how to avoid killing our selves by actually killing ourselves. Then it is too late for us to use Popper “Knowledge”."

Unfortunately, the commenter appears to be unfamiliar with the works of Karl Popper. He may have read some of Popper's statements, but is either unable to consider them, or is unwilling to change his preconceived (ill-conceived?) ideas. I could go through his rant, sentence by sentence and try to refute his claims. However, when I read, "His method only tells us how to avoid killing our selves by actually killing ourselves." I think to myself, Nah!

The commenter's words sound assertive and scientific, implying that he is well read on the topic, and as such, many readers will accept them as the truth. They may even repeat the assertions to others when they are discussing Karl Popper's writings.

Of course, that same criticism that the commenter's words sound assertive and scientific etc, can be applied to me. The difference (I hope), is that I have tried to examine his claims and given some argument as to why I think his claims are misleading or inappropriate, whereas, the commenter has not afforded Popper the same courtesy.

This is how falsehoods and misconceptions get transformed, in the minds of some, into axioms.