If this hypothesis were true, then I should expect to find that all drug addicts started in life as breathers. That is, E, my confirming experiment, turns out to be true. According to the form of the argument, I would then conclude that my original hypothesis H is true. Logically one cannot find decisively confirming instances. However, one can find non-confirming instances.
Science is then a matter of developing hyptheses - and then attempting to falsify hypotheses.
Those that withstand this negative criticism, we presume, are closer to Truth than those which can be falsified. Notice that Popper's project is thus a modification of the original program of the positivists. This means, moreover, giving up the original positivist claims that science always gives you truth . Rather, the falsifiability criterion can only demonstrate that the hypotheses which survive the attempt to falsify them are less false than those which can be falsified. That is, the assymptotic approach means that my current hypothesis may be replaced tomorrow by one that is less false .