> If we were really nitpicky about falsification, we would completely cease doing/studying/researching psychology, economics and a whole host of complex topics.

> If we were really nitpicky about falsification, we would completely cease doing/studying/researching psychology, economics and a whole host of complex topics. Each scientific discipline has its own standards. We're talking about physics, so I don't think what psychologists are or aren't doing with their field is relevant. In physics you used to produce predictions and test those predictions experimentally. It's not too sophisticated but it has worked pretty much miraculously so far. Now, if we're into building models that can't produce predictions, that might be deep and useful at some point, but it doesn't mean everybody else has to accept an inversion of epistemology now to make room for it simply because there are people asking to do so.