"Falsifiability (or refutability or testability) is the logical possibility that an assertion can be shown false by an observation or a physical experiment. "Falsifiable" does not mean false; rather, it means that something is capable of disproof.

"When an assertion has been shown to be false, then some contrary examples or exceptions to the assertion have been demonstrated, observed or shown. Falsifiability is an important concept in science and the philosophy of science.

"Some philosophers and scientists, most notably Karl Popper, have asserted that a hypothesis, proposition or theory is scientific only if it is falsifiable."

Source : http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Falsifiability

What had been usually known as science, by such men as e.g. Descartes, Newton, Clerk Maxwell, Helmholtz, Mach, etc., used to be : a hypothesis, proposition or theory is to be deemed scientific after if had undergone an empirical testing (observation or experiment).

Before a hypothesis, proposition or theory had undergone empirical testing it is neither scientific nor unscientific but is a mere hypothesis, proposition or theory ; this would usually mean a proposition or a number of propositions stated in some form (as distinguished, for example, from "his theory" which may be known to be had by him but not otherwise known).

How do we tell somebody's theory etc. is scientific (Latin scio, scire, 'know', 'know about'). : First, by examining whether it at all hangs together (is coherently stated) and, second, whether it is capable of empirical proof (observation or experiment).

Whether the theory etc. hangs together (is coherent) should be evident from reading (analysing the logic of) the propositions by which it is being represented, and this does not need any additional "theory of refutation". (Any University Professors over there who can read?)

Is a true (well-stated and workable) theory etc. 'falsifiable' ? This theory of 'falsifiability' seems to imply that a true theory etc. would not be "scientific" (because you cannot refute, or say, 'falsify' it).

One can spin cobwebs without end and call it 'philosophy of science' or call it anything at all. I am not particularly trying to refute ('falsify'?) anything here but rather advising the reader to be sceptical about any "theory" which shows no promise of leading beyond mere words about words about words ('glib and superficial').

Let us look at all this bunk again : "Falsifiability (or refutability or testability) is the logical possibility that an assertion can be shown false by an observation or a physical experiment.

But who needs the 'logical possibility' when all that is needed is an observation or a physical experiment ?

I do not know about you, the reader, but I for one would vastly prefer the logical possibility that an assertion can be shown true by an observation or a physical experiment.

WPT, Sept 07