Non Falsifiable

The problem with deep theories of human nature is that they eventually wind up with Dr Freud or something equally non-falsifiable — the ‘man with too many qualities’. ❋ Unknown (2010)

As with religion, its claims are often non-falsifiable, hence the convenience of the term "climate change" when thermometers don't oblige the expected trend lines. ❋ Bret Stephens (2011)

Hence, the core belief of progressives is non-falsifiable. ❋ Unknown (2009)

Why the increasing references to the non-falsifiable “climate change”? charles Says: ❋ Unknown (2009)

Oh the irony of someone touting “intelligent design” claiming (falsely) that Darwinism/the theory of evolution is “non-falsifiable.” ❋ Unknown (2010)

In other words, it is non-falsifiable and therefore unscientific. ❋ Unknown (2010)

So, don't give me that ignorant claptrap about the models being "non-falsifiable". ❋ Unknown (2009)

Oh the irony of someone touting “intelligent design” claiming falsely that Darwinism / the theory of evolution is “non-falsifiable.” ❋ Unknown (2010)

As such they have a non-falsifiable assertion– a dead end. ❋ Unknown (2009)

Bryan, can one have "a firm grip on market failure arguments" and yet reject standard versions of the argument as anti-subjectivist making "consumption" non-volitional or non-falsifiable? ❋ Unknown (2009)

But it seems like a strawman to me where he puts people at believing non-falsifiable economic models as perfection, then knocks them down. ❋ Unknown (2009)

As such they have a non-falsifiable assertion– a deadend. ❋ Unknown (2009)

It might be easier to cast doubt on the conclusions by suggesting hypotheses which are equally plausible, equally supportable and equally non-falsifiable but which the initial proposer finds objectionable. ❋ JLK (2009)

But as Francis Crick pointed out, The lesson is clear: speculation is fun, but even correct hypotheses without experimental follow-up are unlikely to have much effect on the development of biology. rachelrachel: Logically, if a proposition is non-falsifiable, it might be true. ❋ Unknown (2007)

The orthodox stance, that of the NAS and NCSE, is that ID is not science because it's non-falsifiable using the scientific method. ❋ Unknown (2007)

Having a mandatory statement purposefully and deceptively conflating science and creationism under the guise of "Intelligent Design" (as found in Kitzmiller) * is* unconstitutional. rachelrachel: The orthodox stance, that of the NAS and NCSE, is that ID is not science because it's non-falsifiable using the scientific method. ❋ Unknown (2007)

Logically, if a proposition is non-falsifiable, it might be true. ❋ Unknown (2007)