The author is a ‘she’ not a ‘he’ but.. I agree with your analysis. This is article is a way to take falsifiability off the table as a useful tool, which of co

The author is a ‘she’ not a ‘he’ but.. I agree with your analysis. This is article is a way to take falsifiability off the table as a useful tool, which of course paves the way for unfalsifiable claims to be argued for on the basis of their purity. It’s quite disturbing, even before the place where you see it go off the rails, there were some red flags - the idea that you can always defend a hypothesis by casting doubt on any element of an experiment, for example, or by introducing a new good-faith explanation of how the origins hypothesis can still be true. Of course you can - and by doing so you generate new hypotheses that can be tested. This is to be expected and has no bearing at all on whether falsifiability itself is a problem. The author is a professor of ‘science humanities’, which is itself an Orwellian sounding title. This piece suggests that she doesn’t understand the philosophy r science at all.