You have the right idea, but I am not exactly a naïve falsificationist. Falsification is just the dual of verification.
Kevin Kelly can articulate this better than me. He and I agree that even Sigma_2 statements can be scientific:
KK: > In other words, one feels secure while a > particular instance of the sigma-2 statement continues to be "confirmed" >and then one loses confidence for a while when the favored instance is > refuted. That's the best you can do.
I agree. I further claim that, since it only makes sense to talk about things within our horizon, any meaning we can correctly give to Sigma_2 sentences is by projecting them as empirically-verifiable-or-refutable predictions... as you suggest when talking about "confidence", a Sigma_2 statement would have probabilistic consequences that are, in a weaker sense, empirically-verifiable-or-refutable.
falsificationism
Date: 2006-08-13 06:59 pm (UTC)Kevin Kelly can articulate this better than me.
He and I agree that even Sigma_2 statements can be scientific: