Probably not what you want, but there is a risk that people use “unfalsifiable” where a better word would be “illegible” or “unable to verify using today’s technology”.
For example, the original behaviorists rejected the concept of thoughts and emotions as unscientific. Generally, people in the past assumed that thoughts are immaterial, and therefore not a possible object of science.
This is controversial, but from certain perspective, the entire concept of probability is… well, can you define probability in a way that is not circular? The Popperian idea of “falsification” seems black and white. If a theory predicts that something happens with probability 90%, how many experiments do you need to do until the theory is “falsified”?
Probably not what you want, but there is a risk that people use “unfalsifiable” where a better word would be “illegible” or “unable to verify using today’s technology”.
For example, the original behaviorists rejected the concept of thoughts and emotions as unscientific. Generally, people in the past assumed that thoughts are immaterial, and therefore not a possible object of science.
This is controversial, but from certain perspective, the entire concept of probability is… well, can you define probability in a way that is not circular? The Popperian idea of “falsification” seems black and white. If a theory predicts that something happens with probability 90%, how many experiments do you need to do until the theory is “falsified”?