If your contention is that a logical proposition like "no number of confirming observations can verify a universal generalization" can be tested empirically (i.

If your contention is that a logical proposition like "no number of confirming observations can verify a universal generalization" can be tested empirically (i.e. by experimental observation of the physical world), then we're going to have to agree to disagree. If you agree that such a proposition is logical rather than empirical, then it seems clear that you see some use for philosophy after all, even if you resist admitting it. =) Don't get too hung up on Karl Popper or falsifiability, by the way. What I and others are trying to point out to you is that your dismissals of philosophy implicitly rely on a foundation of philosophical arguments.