Cian O'Connor wrote:
>
>
>
> I haven't got any of his books to hand unfortunately,
> so this is from memory. However he basically said that
> if a statement isn't falsifiable, then it isn't
> scientific.
Among the innumerable objections to this failed attempt at defining science may I mention only one: Is the principle of falisfiability itself a scientific statement, and if so, is it falsifiable? We are back with all the problems which were supposedly solved but in fact only raised in new forms by the Theory of Types.
If it is not a scientific statement, then one might suspect it of being a religious statement. It is certainly often asserted with the same bland assurance with which the Christian assures us that God is Love.
Carrol