Thank you, Jarren.

I wrote about the fallacy of falsification, too (for instance: https://fred-rick.medium.com/however-falsification-is-not-available-in-the-silver-realm-of-science-4f9d2c9effb )

My approach, however, is more scientific. There are two realms to science, the golden and the silver realm. The golden realm is when results can be repeated or when facts are discovered in the actual field being discussed. Falsification has its work cut out in the golden realm.

The silver realm is when results cannot be repeated or when golden facts are imported into a field. Falsification has no power in the silver realm.

I'll use the example of the materialization process, because it contains both golden and silver realm aspects.

The Golden Facts we have of the materialization process start out with the oldest fact we have: the Cosmic Microwave Background Radiation. Another one is the collective outbound motion we see among all matter. While not repeatable, they have been established from direct observation in the field itself.

The silver realm aspects are golden facts discovered elsewhere and then imported into this field, such as with the Large Hadron Collider that provides us information about matter, but that is subsequently placed in the materialization process without any direct observation in the field.

So, when the right scientific conditions aren't present, then falsification must not be used.

Thinking we have a scientific tool, while we do not (or not always) makes scientists blind and disables them in having honest discussions (which is how I figured out something was sincerely amiss with falsification; it was -totally- abused in conversations).

I encountered many folks that did not agree to starting out the materialization process with energy that already existed, and who then used the 'falsification argument'.

Because I had to battle the falsification argument, I could not discuss the obvious: one cannot say two things that contradict one another at the same time.

Many say:

* Energy does not get lost

* Show me the evidence that energy already existed

As you can see, two people can each take in one of these positions (and I would not have a problem with them). But a single person cannot (as in absolutely not) say both things at the same time. Only not very intelligent people would say both things at the same time.

How do scientists get away with presenting both positions? They hardly ever state them both at the same time. They are not seeing the disconnect between both positions because they don't think about them at the same time.

Thank you for your article. Glad you and Singham write about it, as have I.