falsifiability

The problem is religion is a constantly moving target for falsifiability.

The foundation of science is testing theories against evidence, which means falsifiability.

A theory without a falsifiability is also a belief.

Constrasting that with a horoscope, where there are no underlying physical (or even spiritual) models and no chance of falsifiability.

Even though solipsism is not falsifiable, falsifiability is not the only measure of scientific credibility.

The effective aspect of the scientific method that separates it from scientism is falsifiability.

Few modern fields are more full of baseless speculation and supposition, lack falsifiability, etc.

>The problem is religion is a constantly moving target for falsifiability.

But see, for this specific event, there is a chance of falsifiability.

A theory without experimental falsifiability is not a theory, but a hypothesis.

Jaynes' articulation of his theory is elaborate and discursive, but also rigorous and well-qualified (in terms of acknowledging limitations and the difficulties of falsifiability).

If you're looking for falsifiability and reproducibility in something that so far has been intermittant and subjective, then you are using the wrong tool.

It also adopts the conceptual framework of cognitive psychology, which can be a bit of a grab bag in terms of falsifiability because it is so heavily reliant on "indirect observation." Finally, it frequently deals in topics which are flashpoints for controversy, which invites unusually stringent examination and rejection from people with some personal or political or religious agenda.

Falsifiability doesn't apply to essentially any metaphysics, anyway.

Falsifiability is the cornerstone of the scientific method.