> It's justified by logical argument, but not by empirical evidence. On the contrary, falsifiability's merits can be tested and potentially falsified. Science

> It's justified by logical argument, but not by empirical evidence. On the contrary, falsifiability's merits can be tested and potentially falsified. Science produces more useful results -- a better depiction of reality -- than other pursuits that don't require falsifiability. That is a merit-test (a falsifiable one) for falsifiability. The issue is not whether falsifiability exists, the issue is whether it has greater merit than other ways of evaluating ideas. > ... because things like "theories" and "truth" are not physical. Neither are ideas, but we grant ideas the status of tangible things, to the degree that we assign ownership to some of them (with mixed results). Scientific theories have validity solely to the degree to which we can correlate them with aspects of reality. This gives scientific theories a special status not shared by all ideas. > ... then I don't see how you can state that most philosophy is not falsifiable and remain consistent. It would be easy for a philosopher to refute such a claim -- by producing a philosophical theory that has the property of falsifiability by empirical evidence. But if that were done, the submitted theory would fail the litmus test of philosophical ideas in modern times (that they be ideas apart from empirically testable ones). This is the property that distinguishes philosophy from science. So it seems the distinction is to some extent self-referential.