> I think it would be fair to flip that around: if your philosophy doesn't result in testable predictions, then what's the point? "Untestable philosophies are

> I think it would be fair to flip that around: if your philosophy doesn't result in testable predictions, then what's the point? "Untestable philosophies are pointless" is an untestable philosophy, and therefore pointless by its own standards. This is a well-known problem with logical positivism, which is roughly the position you are advocating.