Both falsificationism and verificationism, adopted as actual operating standards, are recipes for analysis paralysis. The only thing that keeps you moving forward is a actively looking for ways to move forward which do not appear in any predictable ways.
Conversation
Replying to
When you encounter an idea, a mediocre, mobilizing question to ask is "what could this be right about?" It's a sort of Miller's Law perspectivism. A sort of constant shifting around trying to move forward.
4
12
Replying to
True critical thought must incorporate the possibility of the limitedness of thought itself. Like chess, it is mostly a game against one’s own errors — which is why it can never be approached by procedure or reduced to mere technique.
“Humility is the handmaiden of liminality”
1
Replying to
I've noted falsificationism for some to lead them to throw out the good with the bad, missing the parts of an idea worth keeping.
Replying to
I've got a who noted similarly that most real scientific hypothesis are neither falsifiable or verifiable. His take was to build an infinite complexity hierarchy of verification and map it onto topological ideas *static and wails*




