I’m not a scientist either. (Well, I had the job title “Senior Computer Scientist” but that’s just a euphemism for “computer hacker with gray hair.” :smack:) But I have worked with signals with high noise components, and patterns in which there were things we knew we didn’t know (and even things we didn’t know that we didn’t know 
) so my intuition tells me something about this sort of “falsifiability”, though I am happy to listen to a real scientist articulate the situation better. (After all, Waldo does have a point: scientists constantly speak of falsifiability.)
But I want to distance myself from the other non-scientists in this debate. I come here to learn. Some come here to trot out over and over and over and over some “make predictions” dogma they learned in 8th grade and pretend they need to teach science to the scientists. Soon we’ll see the syllogism:
[ul][li]People called Copernicus, Galileo and Darwin crackpots, but their ideas were vindicated.[/li][li]People call me a crackpot.[/li][li]Therefore I will be vindicated.[/li][/ul]
(Among other flaws, the named scientists were actually highly respected by their peers.)
I explained that six heads in a row would disprove a Fair Coin hypothesis in the same sense that five more cool years would “disprove global warming.” This was ignored.
I explained that the chance of “disproof” is more than 5% if one is allowed to pick and choose from more than one 95%-confident predictions. This was beyond their arithmetic know-how.
Gigo, we admire your indefatigability. But some people just don’t want to learn.