You don't have to subscribe to falsification as an ulimate principle.

No it's not.

Nope.

I'm asking you to prove falsification should be used as a metaphysical principle.

So what's the point of you bringing it up?

When?

All the time?

What type of causal explainations?

But who disagrees with that?

Certainly not the one who denies falsification.

As an ulimate explaination.

BRB - burritos.

Any way, back.

@.Sahncede What about Duhem-quine thesis of underdetermination?

Falsification, as I generally think of it, would be Popperian, yeah.

I don't understand. How do you disentangle whether something is falsified, or whether there are auxillery hypothesis?

If I'm confused.

Then tell me what I'm confused about.

Why are you asking me, if you're telling me I'm confused?

Tell me where I'm confused.

How do you get past the duheim-quine hypothesis?

Nawh, not right now.

Maybe later on, if you want.

I perfer typing, tbh, though.

Voice allows too much sophistry.