spin

This post, like my previous one, was not directed to Avi. He has simple decided that other people are wrong to use language as they do, especially in the scholarly world. He knows better. You cannot argue with a mind welded shut.
This is what I love: nothing gets in, refuse to look, why waste the time to notice the fact that the rest of the world--at least, the scholarly world--is using the notion of falsifiability productively?

Theories often don't contain means to finally validate them. The theory of evolution analyzes material that is unable to present a whole picture that allows one to say it must be right. However, new data that reflect on its contention that life evolved is discovered every day and if one datum cannot be shown to fit within the constraints of the theory, then, as the theory cannot hold it, it has been shown to be false.

If a theory does not under any circumstances contain the possibility of being falsifiable, ie that one can show a way that the theory could be false, then the theory has no significance.

Take the theory of a god. We certainly have no means to show it is true: gods don't seem to want to demonstrate they exist in any objective manner, so we can't verify the theory. There are no data for us to use to falsify the theory. How can one show there is no god? The theory is impenetrable and unproductive: we can't do anything with it. The god theory has no significance. Seriously by the definitions of the theory one can neither verify nor falsify god. That should be the end of the story. It is only through the denial of reason that it lingers. Because it is not falsifiable it is useless.

Falsifiability is entrenched in any coherent field of study. Theories must be falsifiable to have any value. Ask, can the theory be shown under any circumstances to be false? If it can't, drop it.