Popper claims to solve Hume's problem of induction by explaining that science does not use induction at all, but rather science can be described by the process of putting forward hypotheses and then trying to falsify them. The more severe testing a hypothesis has undergone, the more we should trust it, although it can never be fully proven.

This view definitely has its criticisms, but that's not the point of this post. What I'd like to ask is: What is the relationship with Popper's view and Nelson Goodman's new riddle of induction? I'm having trouble deciding whether the new riddle should still apply to Popper's falsificationism in a modified way.