In recent years, numerous arguments have emerged suggesting that the Lambda Cold Dark Matter (ΛCDM) model may be inconsistent with observational data, requiring more or less radical revisions. Notable examples include the “Hubble tension”—the discrepancy between early- and late-universe measurements of the Hubble constant—as well as tensions in measurements of cosmic structure growth. These issues have led some to question the validity of the ΛCDM framework and consider possible modifications or alternative models. However, upon closer inspection, many of these critiques stem from methodological or interpretive disagreements rather than from clear falsifications in the strict Popperian sense. Karl Popper proposed that scientific theories must be testable and falsifiable; in other words, a theory should be rejected if it fails a specific, reproducible test. Yet, many of the alleged “inconsistencies” within ΛCDM, while statistically significant, are not definitive falsifications but rather indicators of areas needing refinement or more complex modeling within the same framework. Thus, I review the recent claims about ΛCDM’s limitations and analyze why they often reflect individual biases or philosophical preferences, rather than rigorous scientific falsifications. For example, alternative cosmological models such as Modified Newtonian Dynamics (MOND) or models incorporating new physics like quintessence or modified gravity are sometimes advocated based on theoretical appeal rather than direct evidence from critical tests. In many cases, these arguments for falsifying ΛCDM reveal more about subjective interpretations of data than about concrete observational contradictions.