> However, as Michael Gordin, professor of the history of science at Princeton University, notes early on in his lively and thought-provoking survey of multiple

> However, as Michael Gordin, professor of the history of science at Princeton University, notes early on in his lively and thought-provoking survey of multiple dodgy and perhaps-not-as-dodgy-as-you-thought scientific areas, falsification invariably fails almost before it starts. How do you know that you’ve actually falsified a theory? Is getting a weird, unexpected result enough? I blogged about this thing a few months ago. We misunderstand Popper. Hell, Popper probably misunderstood his own ideas. Falsifiability works precisely because it's imprecise. It's not a bug, it's a feature. For more depth, obligatory link: https://danielbmarkham.com/negatives-stack-positives-dont-a-numberline-model-of-communication/ https://danielbmarkham.com/negatives-stack-positives-dont-a-...