Isn't Popper's epistemology a form of Argument from Ignorance? "We assume it is true if it has not (yet) been falsified."

But the fact that it hasn't been falsified doesn't make it true; assuming that would be an Argument from Ignorance.

In other words: to what extent is Poppers reasoning valid in the context of Argument from Ignorance and why?

Isn't Popper's epistemology a form of Argument from Ignorance? "We assume it is true if it has not (yet) been falsified."

But the fact that it hasn't been falsified doesn't make it true; assuming that would be an Argument from Ignorance.

In other words: to what extent is Popper's reasoning valid in the context of the Argument from Ignorance and why?