from Wiktionary, Creative Commons Attribution/Share-Alike License
- adj. Logically capable of being proven false.
from the GNU version of the Collaborative International Dictionary of English
- adj. Capable of being falsified, counterfeited, or corrupted.
- adj. able to be proven false, and therefore testable.
from The Century Dictionary and Cyclopedia
- Capable of being falsified, counterfeited, or corrupted.
from WordNet 3.0 Copyright 2006 by Princeton University. All rights reserved.
- adj. capable of being tested (verified or falsified) by experiment or observation
That ID may or may not be falsifiable is not as much of a concern to me as finding helpful conceptual tools.
All scientific assertions, proven or unproven, must be falsifiable, that is, indicate a possible set of observable facts that disprove them.
These ideas are neither testable nor falsifiable, which is why their proponents avoid peer review in respected scientific journals and take their pitch directly to the public through popular books and a well-financed PR machine.
Although a good number of Quranic revelations can be identified as falsifiable through scientific means, the revelation about the non-physical nature of biological information appears quite suitable for the purpose.
Its claims are not falsifiable, which is why economists can disagree so violently among themselves: a rarer spectacle in science, where disputes are usually resolved one way or another by hard data.
Its claims are not falsifiable, which is why economists can disagree so violently among themselves.
It would seem that, now that Obamacare's passed, there's a certain diffidence among its supporters about actually making any kind of falsifiable predictions of its alleged benefits: "Forgive me, but to my admittedly naive ears, this sounds like what you are saying is that you think that if we cover the uninsured, we will have lower mortality rates, fewer medical bankruptcies, and a lower deficit."
Now, the most "falsifiable" theories are the ones which are actually false or totally absurd.
We all know that scientists like to think (at least) that they deal solely with theories, models, hypotheses that are "falsifiable," that can be tested and proven wrong.
These predictions make evolution falsifiable, which is why it’s a science and creationism isn’t.