Falsifiability and verifiability go hand in hand. If there is no conceivable observation that could contradict a hypothesis, that hypothesis isn't going anywhere.
On the contrary, for Popper falsification is the only proper scientific method, he doesn't allow verification.
Verification has the form of:
If T, then O
O
T
and that is for Popper unacceptable. He insists that:
If T, then O
Not-O
Not-T
Popper doesn't accept inductive reasoning and verification. "The theory to be developed in the following pages stands directly opposed to all attempts to operate with the ideas of inductive logic. It might be described as the theory of the deductive method of testing, or as the view that a hypothesis can only be empirically tested-and only after it has been advanced." (Karl Popper, The Logic of Scientific Discovery)
I wasn't claiming that everything that was falsifiable was science, just that falsifiability was a critical aspect of the application of scientific method.
Falsifiability is not a critical aspect, because it puts immediate demands on theories that are not yet mature enough to meet them. It is important, but if it's applied too rigorously and too early, it can be very stifling.
They weren't scientific theories then either.
Copernicus' heliocentric theory initially yielded no potentially falsifying predictions and was unfalsifiable until Galilei and Kepler.
"I have come to the conclusion that Darwinism is not a testable scientific theory, but a
metaphysical research programme—a possible framework for testable scientific theories." [Popper, 1976, p. 168] (He later revisited his view.)
Mendeleev's predictions were also unfalsifiable when he came out with them.
When Pauli postulated the existence of neutrino in order to preserve the law of conversation of energy, that postulation stayed unfalsifiable for more than 20 years.
Boltzmann, Maxwell and Clausius were convinced that atoms can explain many results in thermal physics and chemistry, yet their theory was unfalsifiable until the existence of electron was discovered.
Einstein proposed the existence of photons in 1905, and yet again it was unfalsifiable for nearly 20 years.
I could go on and on with "unfalsifiable" theories in science.
Falsifiability doesn't accurately describe the way science really works and therefore it can't be accepted as the only criteria for scientific method. (Steven Weinberg, Alan Sokal)
Expanding science beyond what can conceivably be tested with the scientific method leads to a uselessly broad definition of science.
How is the Type V civilization more scientific than, say, the divine?
Because the Type V civilization is potentially non-falsifiable.