There are problems with falsificationism, as well. You don't really reject theories based on a single falsifying data point. Sometimes you reject the data point as fake or misinterpreted. Sometimes you modify your theory and replace it, but it's unclear that that's different from the goalpost-moving of astrologers and homeopaths.
Falsification is a good stake in the ground that allows scientists to work, but it's unclear if it's actually a step towards the epistemology represented by the Munchausen trilemma. Scientists have a notion that it allows them to work "toward" Truth-with-a-capital-T, a notion which both feels right and has produced high standards of living. Those may be better goals than Truth-with-a-capital-T, which may be unavailable.
Falsification is a good stake in the ground that allows scientists to work, but it's unclear if it's actually a step towards the epistemology represented by the Munchausen trilemma. Scientists have a notion that it allows them to work "toward" Truth-with-a-capital-T, a notion which both feels right and has produced high standards of living. Those may be better goals than Truth-with-a-capital-T, which may be unavailable.