surreptitious57 wrote: ↑Mon Sep 09, 2019 6:24 pm
Immanuel Can wrote:
But you only asked that it be falsifiable . I showed you how it is . Now where do you go with that ?
it is not actually falsifiable in practice
"In practice?" That's not a problem. It's not the case that a theory has to be falsified in order to be coherent: in fact, if it is falsified, it's false. So that would be silly.
The argument is that it must be falsifiable
, meaning that in principle, a method could be devised
to show it false. It doesn't suggest that the method (thus devised) works
to show it false in practice
...for if it did, again, the thesis would be false every time. And that would be silly.
The failure to falsify in practice actually indicates it's more likely the hypothesis is true
...not that it is unscientific.