But with a double crux that is currently unfalsifiable there is no or little good discussion to be had.
I don’t think that’s true. For example, much of what social sciences do is debating unfalsifiable propositions.
In particular, “unfalsifiable” does not mean that the weight of the evidence couldn’t be more on one side than the other. If you are not going to discuss questions for which there is “no slam dunk”, what are you going to discuss? Whether water is wet?
It is worthwhile to think about what we should do before hard take off. It is also worthwhile to think about what we should do during soft takeoff
Sure, but why is that a problem? Discussing conditional scenarios is a very commonplace activity.
I don’t think that’s true. For example, much of what social sciences do is debating unfalsifiable propositions.
In particular, “unfalsifiable” does not mean that the weight of the evidence couldn’t be more on one side than the other. If you are not going to discuss questions for which there is “no slam dunk”, what are you going to discuss? Whether water is wet?
Sure, but why is that a problem? Discussing conditional scenarios is a very commonplace activity.