> That sounds more like a verificationist idea of science than a Popperian falsification process. Actually, it's an informal statement of the null hypothesis:

> That sounds more like a verificationist idea of science than a Popperian falsification process. Actually, it's an informal statement of the null hypothesis: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Null_hypothesis http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Null_hypothesis In the null hypothesis, supposedly the basis for all experimental science, you start with the assumption that there is no effect, and let the evidence force you to a different conclusion. In other words, you assume nothing out of the ordinary and take no position on the subject of study. > Wouldn't it be a much better criticism to say that the cryptozoologists are not scientific because they do not make falsifiable predictions? Yes, it would, but that's not a very popular definition of science these days. If it were, psychiatrists and psychologists would be immediately excluded -- they make plenty of predictions, but the predictions don't work out.