Falsifiability is a human concept that is used to exclude that which is ununderstandable because far be it for a scientist to say that yes, something can exist that is beyond my understanding.

1. If something is universally true, it very well may not be falsifiable. IF it is a truth, does that make it less true because we can't prove it false? Seems we are limiting ourselves by using falsifiability as a guideline for possible truth.

2. As our understanding and concepts broaden, so does our ability to "falsify". 200 years ago, we could not conceptualize a way to falisfy the existence of atoms. Did that make them any less than what they are? Did that make them not a part of the biological, physical world and therefor an impact in our scientific studies? No. It just meant we had not reached an intellectual maturity to be ABLE to falsify them.

Falsifiability is an ignorant concept. It's a matter of saying everything has to fit into MY scope of knowledge RIGHT NOW. It's ignoring the distance we've come in the scientific community over the decades and decades and saying that we will never be more than what we are today. That is a true insult to the human mind, especially considering that we are only using 10% of it.


Evolution does not actually INCLUDE an origin - but it could be concluded to lead to big bang and "primordial ooze" concepts. Frankly "primordial ooze" is as unfalsifiable as the existence of God.

And I felt the same from my Anthropology courses as you did but on the opposite scale. It was not allowed to approach any foreign concepts outside the accepted norm. I was amusing that the "judgemental bigotry" you experienced sounds exactly opposite of what I experienced.

(Reply) (Parent) (Thread)