And following this thread it still isn't quite clear to me - is "falsifiability" then the same thing as "verifiability" except for half-full-half-empty considerations?
Falsification and Verification are diametrically opposed models of what constitutes science. Verificationism is what the positivists promoted. A theory is scientific if it can be verified - something along the lines of - if you design an experiment under which your theory explains the data, then you have verified your theory.
As Popper pointed out, however, this ignores Humes objection. How can you prove there are no white crows? How many instances of a thing must you see, before you can deduce that all things are like the ones you have witnessed. Answer: there is no logical reason to deduce this.
In Popper's view, everything is potentially false. However, you're justified in tentatively accepting any view, that has not been disproven.
Popper's views are currently being reevaluted by luminaries like Paul Kurtz and Martin Gardner. Apparently, few if any scientists actually work like this. (I think they miss the point - which is that we're talking about a logical basis for a system, not a methodology.)
k
