You're looking at Less Wrong's discussion board. This includes all posts, including those that haven't been promoted to the front page yet. For more information, see About Less Wrong.

AstraSequi comments on How to provide a simple example to the requirement of falsifiability in the scientific method to a novice audience? - Less Wrong Discussion

5 Post author: Val 11 April 2016 09:26PM

You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.

Comments (57)

You are viewing a single comment's thread.

Comment author: AstraSequi 18 April 2016 02:00:57AM *  1 point [-]

This depends on what kind of unfalsifiability you want. There are at least four kinds.

  • unfalsifiable with current resources (Russell's teapot)
  • unfalsifiable because of moving goalposts
  • unfalsifiable because the terms are incoherent or undefined ("not even wrong")
  • unfalsifiable in principle

No empirical claim is unfalsifiable in principle (i.e. without resource limitations, moving goalposts, or logical incoherency). Claims that involve violations of physical law come the closest, but require us to assume 100% confidence in the law itself. For a non-empirical claim to be unfalsifiable, empirical consequences of the claim have to be impossible, which ultimately requires you to eliminate them by definition. I think you’re trying to find an example of the fourth meaning when most people who talk about unfalsifiability are thinking about one of the others.