Falsification is something that you do to hypotheses, not data. Experiments that Aristotle performed to demonstrate classical elemental theory are still valid and useful, his incorrect interpretation of the underlying mechanisms notwithstanding
From Oxford via https://google.com/search?q=falsify :
1. alter (information, a document, or evidence) so as to mislead. "a laboratory which was alleged to have falsified test results"
vs
2. prove (a statement or theory) to be false. "the hypothesis is falsified by the evidence"
Nonsense. Falsification of data happens all the time. But more importantly, falsification as applied to hypotheses and falsification as applied to data are two completely different concepts.
Falsification in the sense "we tried this, and got unexpected results, disconfirming our hypothesis" is something you do to hypotheses. This is Popperian falsification.
In the sense of what happens to data, falsification is "we tried this, and got data that disconfirmed our hypothesis. But instead of recording that data, we recorded spurious data which confirms our hypothesis". (Or, of course, "we didn't try anything, but here are some numbers that we feel reflect what would have happened if we had".) This is falsification in the same sense you'd see it applied to, say, accounting records.
It has a bit of a meta role I suppose - a system must be robust enough with replication that it shouldn't matter. Knowing bad actors are about can promote better verification practices than a blind trust.
All beside the point: his observations are not invalid, his conclusions are
"”Males have more teeth than females in the case of men, sheep, goats, and swine; in the case of other animals _observations have not yet been made_”
Emphasis mine.