...except that this is an intro; keep it simple.

But that discussion of the logic of falsification has been removed from the article is one of the things I plan to correct.

You might have a look.

An hyphen? — Janus

No.

You might have a look.

[edit: quote corrected]

Is any of the theories of consciousness falsifiable? And shouldn't article provide sufficiently precise definition so we can make that distinction?

A claim that renders counter-examples verifiable.

I don't understand the question.

Mistake, I was quoting Banno.

A claim that renders counter-examples verifiable.

I love conciseness and find your expression artfull. However, words “renders” and “verifiable” are very complex and thus too vague and ambiguous to be used in this definition. It’s kind of like talking about points and lines in terms of cubes and dodecahedrons.

The primary purpose of any definition is to draw strict boundaries around the concept being defined, so it can be differentiated from all the other concepts. And the question is - what are the essential properties or boundaries that definition of ‘falsifiability’ must address?

a.) hypothesis implies or explicitly states at least one empirical prediction
b.) this empirical prediction must satisfy:
1. if test measurement differs from the prediction, hypothesis is deemed false
2. proposed empirical prediction must be realizable with current technology

Maybe I’m forgetting something, but surely without that last clause b.2.), definition of falsifiability will be useless and pointless since any hypothesis can potentially argue one day it will be testable.

True statements cannot be falsified.

Nobody claimed otherwise.

Right. Just seems rather relevant.

If true statements cannot be falsified, then falsifiability fails as a standard for truth, and/or warrant.

Go on.

Verifiability takes precedence, particularly regarding foundational premisses.

You lost me.

Some true statements are verifiable, but no true statement is falsifiable.

no true statement is falsifiable. — creativesoul

I don't see why not, if it is the kind of statement that would make its counter-examples, if it had any, verifiable.

True statements are unable to be shown as false for they never are.

Better?

Do you have an example that demonstrates your proposed scenario/situation?

True statements are unable to be shown as false for they never are.

Better? — creativesoul

How could it be when it ignores my formula and the clarification?

Do you have an example that demonstrates your proposed scenario/situation? — creativesoul

I dunno... any universal claim that currently looks like it could be true.

F = (within some tolerance) ma?

Any pair of particles produced by sub-atomic decay are entangled?

They are the kind of statement so conducive to experimental testing as to convince us that some of their counter-examples, if they had any at all, would be observable.

If 'an hypothesis' why not 'an hyphen'?

So... I'm a bit confused. Where is the true statement that is able to be shown as false?

Because in 'hypothesis' the accent is on the second syllable, but in 'hyphen' the accent is on the first. At least the way I pronounce them.

Any pair of particles produced by sub-atomic decay are entangled? — bongo fury

Is this meant to represent an example of a true statement that is falsifiable?

:brow:

Either all pairs of particles produced by sub-atomic decay are entangled or they are not. If they are not then the statement is false. It would take observation of particles produced by sub atomic decay that did not subsequently 'exhibit' identical properties to falsify the statement, but that situation cannot even occur if the statement is true.

It would take observation of particles produced by sub atomic decay that did not subsequently 'exhibit' identical properties to falsify the statement — creativesoul

Yes, but not to qualify it as falsifiable. It takes heat to melt a piece of butter, but not to qualify it as "melts at less than 100°C", even though I ate it cold.

It would take observation of particles produced by sub atomic decay that did not subsequently 'exhibit' identical properties to falsify the statement
— creativesoul

Yes, but not to qualify it as falsifiable — bongo fury

To be falsifiable is to be able to be shown as false.

Agree?

Either all pairs of particles produced by sub-atomic decay are entangled or they are not. If they are not then the statement is false. It would take observation of particles produced by sub atomic decay that did not subsequently 'exhibit' identical properties to falsify the statement, but that situation cannot even occur if the statement is true. — creativesoul

My interpretation of what you are saying is that since true hypotheses cannot be falsified, since the evidence will end up supporting them, then they don't pass Popper's criterion. But this is confusing some kind of final knowledge with what we experience.

We put forward an hypothesis. We don't know if it is true or false from our limited perspective. But we can judge, at least to some degree,whether

if

it were false, it would be falsifiable.

True ones will not end up getting falsified. But the criterion still makes sense since we are in a limited knowledge in situ, in time perspective.

If someone says there is a universe beside ours that cannot in any way be observed or experienced and no effects from it arise in our universe and we can never go there.

It might be true. It might be false. But it doesn't pass falsifialibity. We can say that. It's truth, should it happen to be true, does not stop us from saying that it isn't possibly falsifiable.

The can in can be falsified.

Is not the same kind of 'can' involved in whether true things can be disproved. It's a category confusion.

My interpretation of what you are saying is that since true hypotheses cannot be falsified, since the evidence will end up supporting them, then they don't pass Popper's criterion — Coben

I am saying that true statements cannot be shown to be false. If a statement cannot be shown as false, then it is unfalsifiable. I'm not making any assessments regarding Popper's criterion... at least not intentionally. If what I say pertains to Popper's criterion, then it is purely coincidental.

In order for a claim to be falsifiable it must already be false... or it's a prediction... which is neither true or false at the time it's first spoken/uttered.

"Butter melts at less than one hundred degrees" is true, despite it not melting at all temperatures below one hundred degrees.