Strictly speaking, no proposition is proven false (i.e. probability zero). A proposition simply becomes much less likely than competing, inconsistent explanations. To speak that strictly, falsifiability requires the ability to say in advance what observations would be inconsistent (or less consistent) with the theory.

Your belief that the coin is bent does pay rent - you would be more surprised by 100 straight tails than if you thought the coin was fair. But both P=.6 and P=.5 are not particularly consistent with the new observations.

Map & Territory is a slightly different issue. Consider the toy example of the colored balls in the opaque bag. Map & Territory is a metaphor to remind you that your belief in the proportion of red and blue balls is distinct from the actual proportion. Changes in your beliefs cannot change the actual proportions.

Your distinction makes sense - I'm just not sure how to apply it.

When examining a belief, ask "What observations would make this belief less likely?" If your answer is "No such observations exist" then you should have grave concerns about the belief.

Note the distinction between:

• Observations that would make the proposition less likely

• Observations I expect

I don't expect to see a duck have sex with an otter and give birth to a platypus, but if I did, I'd start having serious reservations about the theory of evolution.